PROGRAM MANAGERS TOOL KITAs sponsor of the Tool Kit, the Learn ng Capab l t es Integrat on Center (LCIC) recogn zes the follow ng members of the DAU staff and faculty for the r nput

PROGRAM MANAGERS TOOL KIT

Fourteenth Edition (Ver 2.0)March 2008

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE MAR 2008 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Program Managers Tool Kit

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Defense Acquisition University,Fort Belvoir,VA,22060-5565

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

152

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

DAU PROGRAM MANAGERS TOOL KIT

�


Fourteenth Ed�t�on (Ver 2.0)Apr�l 2008


��

For sale by theU.S. Super�ntendent of Documents, Government Pr�nt�ng Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250 Ma�l Stop: SSOP, Wash�ngton, DC 20402-0001


��

PREFACE

Th�s Fourteenth Ed�t�on (Ver 2.0) of the DAU Program Managers Tool Kit conta�ns a graph�c summary of acqu�s�t�on pol�c�es and manager�al sk�lls frequently requ�red by DoD program managers. It �s a current ver-s�on of a “Tool Box” that was first developed by Charles F. Sch�ed of the Defense Acqu�s�t�on Un�vers�ty (DAU) Program Management Course (PMC) 92-1. For conven�ence, the Tool Kit �s s�zed for �nsert�on �nto a 3-hole, 5-1/2” x 8-1/2” “Day Runner.” The �nformat�on �n the Tool Kit �s ex-tracted from DAU course mater�al and �s based on DoDD 5000.1, DoDI 5000.2, the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), CJCSI 6212.01D (March 14, 2007), and CJCSI 3170.01F (May 1, 2007). Mater�al from the DAU Acker L�brary and Knowledge Repos�tory was also used.

S�nce the DAU Program Managers Tool Kit �s a comp�lat�on of class-room presentat�on and teach�ng mater�als used �n a number of d�fferent courses at DAU, the charts and tables vary �n look and feel.

Users of the Tool Kit are rem�nded that th�s summary �s a gu�de only and should not be used as a subst�tute for offic�al pol�cy gu�dance. Per�-od�c rev�ew of offic�al pol�cy gu�dance �s recommended.


�v


v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As sponsor of the Tool Kit, the Learn�ng Capab�l�t�es Integrat�on Center (LCIC) recogn�zes the follow�ng members of the DAU staff and faculty for the�r �nput to th�s Fourteenth Ed�t�on (Ver 2):

• B�ll Bahnma�er, formerly of DAU’s Program Management and Leadersh�p Department on the Cap�tal/Northeast Reg�onal Campus, for coord�nat�ng the �nput and ed�t�ng the mater�al rece�ved from var�ous DAU faculty and staff sources.

• Charles Cochrane, formerly the DAU Program Management Center D�rector, and currently a DoD contractor support�ng DAU, for h�s s�gn�ficant contr�but�ons on current DoD acqu�s�t�on pol�cy.

• M�ke Dorohov�ch, a contractor from CSC Corporat�on support�ng DAU, for h�s contr�but�on on the DAU knowledge shar�ng systems.

• Duane Tr�pp for h�s �nput on the latest �nternat�onal acqu�s�t�on pol�cy and gu�dance.

• The Learn�ng Capab�l�t�es Integrat�on Center and �ts Center D�rectors and Performance Learn�ng D�rectors, �nclud�ng Sharon Jackson, John Morrell, Dav�d Bachman, Lesl�e Deneault, John Kr�eger, B�ll Kobren, John Claxton, John Snoderly, George Prosn�k, Bruce Moler, and B�ll Motley.

• The V�sual Arts and Press Department, �nclud�ng Kathryn Sondhe�mer for layout/graph�cs, Jud�th Gre�g and Carol Sche�na for ed�t�ng, and Frances Battle for l�a�son w�th the Government Pr�nt�ng Office and the commerc�al pr�nter.

Other s�gn�ficant contr�butors from the DAU faculty were John Kelley and Bob Daugherty of the Program Management Department; Robert Carlson, Bob Gustavus, Gerry Land, and M�r�am Cohe of the Bus�ness, Cost Est�mat�ng, and F�nanc�al Management Department; and Larry Heller of the Log�st�cs Management Department.

Randy FowlerD�rector, Learn�ng Capab�l�t�esIntegrat�on Center

Bradford BrownD�rector, Center for Acqu�s�t�on Management


v�


v��

TAbLE OF CONTENTSPreface ...........................................................................................................��Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... vTable of Contents ..........................................................................................v��

ChAPTER 1—ACqUISITION MANAGEMENT ..................................... 1The Program Manager’s B�ll of R�ghts and Respons�b�l�t�es ...................2Defense Acqu�s�t�on Dec�s�on Po�nts and Phases ..................................3Acqu�s�t�on Categor�es (ACAT) ................................................................4Acqu�s�t�on Strategy Cons�derat�ons ........................................................5Acqu�s�t�on, Technology and Log�st�cs (AT&L) Knowledge

Management System ..................................................................6–8Acqu�s�t�on, Technology, and Log�st�cs Shar�ng System (AKSS) ........6Acqu�s�t�on Commun�ty Connect�on (ACC) .....................................6Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) ..........................................7Integrated Framework Chart (IFC) ..................................................7AT&L ACQu�re ..................................................................................8Best Pract�ces Clear�nghouse (BPCh).............................................8Process Performance and Learn�ng Tools .......................................8

Defense Acqu�s�t�on Board T�mel�ne M�lestones B, C, and FRPDR .......9M�lestone Dec�s�on Informat�on—A Poss�ble Construct ..........................9Informat�on For M�lestone/Dec�s�on Rev�ews ........................................10Interoperab�l�ty ........................................................................................11S&T L�nkage to Defense Acqu�s�t�on Process .......................................12Jo�nt Capab�l�t�es Technology Demonstrat�on (JCTD) 10-Step L�fe-Cycle Process Flow......................................................13Acqu�s�t�on Program vs. ATD and JCTD ................................................14Program Structure/Schedule (Example) ...............................................15

INTERNATIONAL ..................................................................... 16–17DoD Internat�onal Armaments Cooperat�on Pol�cy ...............................16The Scope of Defense Cooperat�on ......................................................16Defense Sales vs. Cooperat�ve Acqu�s�t�on ...........................................17Internat�onal Act�v�t�es Assoc�ated w�th Defense Acqu�s�t�on Phases .........17

FUNDS MANAGEMENT .......................................................... 18–31Resource Allocat�on Process—Overlap ................................................18Plann�ng, Programm�ng, Budget�ng, and Execut�on (PPBE)— Plann�ng Phase .................................................................................19PPBE—On-Year Program/Budget Rev�ew (Even Year) ........................19PPBE—Off-Year Program/Budget Rev�ew (Odd Year) .......................20Resource Allocat�on Process ................................................................20Congress�onal Enactment T�metable ....................................................21Procurement Appropr�at�ons ............................................................22–23RD&TE Appropr�at�ons (Account Numbers) .........................................24RD&TE Appropr�at�ons (Relat�onsh�p Between MFP 6 R&D Categor�es and RDT&E Appropr�at�ons Budget Act�v�t�es) ...........24


v��

ChAPTER 1—ACqUISITION MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)

Sample Navy Appropr�at�ons and Budget Act�v�t�es ..............................25Appropr�at�on L�fe ...................................................................................26Below Threshold Reprogramm�ng Act�ons ............................................26L�fe Cycle Cost Compos�t�on .................................................................27Product Improvements ...........................................................................27Cost Est�mat�ng ......................................................................................28Cost Est�mat�ng Relat�onsh�ps (CER)—Parametr�c ..............................28Cost Est�mat�ng Requ�rements ..............................................................29Program Cost and Schedule Breach Parameters .................................30Performance Measurement ...................................................................31

CONTRACTING ....................................................................... 32–36Contract�ng—Components of Contract Pr�ce ........................................32Types of Contracts .................................................................................32Contract Type Features ....................................................................33–34Pre-Sol�c�tat�on Process .........................................................................35Post-Sol�c�tat�on Process .......................................................................35Other Ways to Buy .................................................................................36

DEFENSE INDUSTRy bUSINESS MANAGEMENT ............... 37–43Contractor Profitab�l�ty Rat�os ................................................................37Aerospace/Defense Industry Contractor Profitab�l�ty Rat�os .................38Lockheed Mart�n Corp.—Dupont Formula Analys�s (An Example) ........39Cash Cycle .............................................................................................40Contractor F�nanc�ng and Payments .....................................................40D�rect and Ind�rect Costs .......................................................................41Ass�gn�ng Ind�rect Costs ........................................................................41L�fe Cycle of Ind�rect Cost Rates ...........................................................42Contractor’s Cost Proposal ....................................................................42Contractor Bus�ness Plann�ng Process Outputs ...................................43

LOGISTICS .............................................................................. 44–50L�fe Cycle Log�st�cs ................................................................................44Pr�nc�pal L�fe Cycle Log�st�cs (Goals/Object�ves) ..................................44System Operat�onal Effect�veness (SOE) .............................................44Best Pract�ce: Support Elements ...........................................................45Support Element Defin�t�ons ..................................................................45L�fe Cycle Log�st�cs L�nkage To Defense Acqu�s�t�on Process ..............46Performance-Based Log�st�cs (PBL) .....................................................47Performance-Based Log�st�cs (PBL) Tool K�t ........................................47Post-Product�on Support Dec�s�on Process ..........................................48Operat�onal Ava�lab�l�ty...........................................................................48L�fe Cycle Susta�nment Metr�cs .............................................................49L�fe Cycle Susta�nment Outcome Enablers...........................................49Log�st�cs Management Commun�ty of Pract�ce (LOG COP) ................50Defense Acquisition Guidebook—L�fe Cycle Log�st�cs .........................50


�x


ORGANIzATION ...................................................................... 51–52Program Office Organ�zat�on Structures (Examples) ....................51–52 “Trad�t�onal” or Funct�onal Structure .................................................51

“Pure” Product Structure ...............................................................51Matr�x Structure ..............................................................................52Integrated Product Teams ..............................................................52

MANUFACTURING .................................................................. 53–58The Role of Manufactur�ng �n the Acqu�s�t�on Process .........................53Common Product�on R�sks That Greatly Impact Cost, Schedule and Performance ..............................................................53Produc�b�l�ty ......................................................................................54–55 Produc�b�l�ty—Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 4.4.6.1 Producibility ...54 Qual�ty Management Systems ...........................................................55 Key Character�st�cs and Var�at�on Reduct�on ...............................55–56 Product�on Read�ness Rev�ew (PRR) ................................................57 Add�t�onal Manufactur�ng Informat�on Sources ..................................57

TEST AND EvALUATION ........................................................ 58–63Test and Evaluat�on (T&E)—Types and Tasks ......................................58Test and Evaluat�on Nomograph ......................................................59-60Model�ng and S�mulat�on (M&S) Plann�ng ............................................61H�erarchy of Models and S�mulat�ons ....................................................62The Evolut�on of Model�ng and S�mulat�on ............................................63

PLANNING AND CONTROL TOOLS ....................................... 64–71Gantt Chart (Example) ...........................................................................64M�lestone Chart (Example) ....................................................................64Network Schedules ................................................................................65Network Schedules (Example) ..............................................................66Examples of Network Schedul�ng Software ..........................................67Schedule Development ..........................................................................68Lead T�me Chart ....................................................................................69L�ne of Balance Techn�que .....................................................................70Acqu�s�t�on Program Basel�ne ................................................................71

RISK MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 72–75R�sk Management Process Model ........................................................72Root Cause Analys�s .............................................................................72R�sk Management Process—Deta�ls ....................................................73R�sk and Tradeoffs Analys�s ...................................................................74Program Manager’s Checkl�st for Rev�ew of Tradeoff Plann�ng and Stud�es ...............................................................................75Techn�cal Performance Measurement .........................................................75


x


SySTEMS ENGINEERING ....................................................... 76–94What Is Systems Eng�neer�ng? .............................................................76Systems Eng�neer�ng Tasks ..................................................................76Systems Eng�neer�ng Pol�cy �n DoD ......................................................76Systems Eng�neer�ng Process—Techn�cal Management Processes ..77Systems Eng�neer�ng Process L�nkages ...............................................78Defense Acqu�s�t�on Management Framework— Techn�cal “V” Act�v�t�es ......................................................................79Concept Refinement Phase Systems Eng�neer�ng Act�v�t�es ...............80Technology Development Phase Systems Eng�neer�ng (SE) Act�v�t�es ...............................................................80System Development and Demonstrat�on Phase SE Act�v�t�es ............81Product�on and Deployment Phase Systems Eng�neer�ng Act�v�t�es ........81Operat�ons and Support Phase Systems Eng�neer�ng Act�v�t�es .........82Requ�rements (User Needs) Analys�s Quest�ons .................................83Attr�butes of a Well-Defined Requ�rement .............................................83Systems Eng�neer�ng Process—Des�gn Operat�ons ............................84Systems Eng�neer�ng Des�gn Cons�derat�ons—“The F�shbone” ..........85Techn�cal Management Processes .......................................................86Spec�ficat�on Development and Techn�cal Rev�ews ..............................87Techn�cal Rev�ew Defin�t�ons .................................................................88Techn�cal Rev�ew Best Pract�ces ...........................................................89Spec�ficat�ons and Standards ................................................................90Performance vs. Deta�l Spec�ficat�ons ...................................................90Program-Un�que Spec�ficat�ons .............................................................91Configurat�on Management ...................................................................92Interface Management ...........................................................................93Interface Control Concept ......................................................................93How To Create a Work Breakdown Structure........................................94Bas�c Purposes of WBS ........................................................................94

SOFTWARE ............................................................................... 95-98Software Development—Techn�cal Rev�ew Relat�onsh�ps ...................95Software Development—Key L�fe Cycle Rev�ew Factors ......................96Cand�date Software Measures (Metr�cs) ...............................................97Qual�ty Events For Software ..................................................................97Software Management Best Pract�ces ..................................................98Software Acqu�s�t�on Worst Pract�ces ....................................................98

ChAPTER 2—LEADERShIP AND MANAGERIAL SKILLS ............... 99Management and Leadersh�p..............................................................100Empowerment, Delegat�on, and Coach�ng .................................101–102 Coach�ng Sk�lls ...............................................................................102Gener�c IPT Process ..........................................................................103Formula for Effect�ve Team Performance ............................................104


x�

Team Charter .......................................................................................105Work�ng Groups ...........................................................................106–107 Team Development Wheel ..............................................................106 Typ�cal Work�ng Groups ..................................................................106 Management Tradeoffs for Work�ng Groups ...................................107Team Performance Model....................................................................107Team Dec�s�on Mak�ng ........................................................................108Effect�ve Meet�ngs ................................................................................109Dec�s�on Br�efing ..................................................................................110Commun�cat�ons ..........................................................................111–113 Counsel�ng ......................................................................................113T�me Management ...............................................................................114Management Tools and Techn�ques ............................................115–116

ChAPTER 3—PRObLEM-SOLvING TOOLS ..................................... 117Bra�nstorm�ng ............................................................................... 117-118Cause-and-Effect D�agram .................................................................119Force F�eld Analys�s ............................................................................119H�stogram ............................................................................................120Scatter D�agram .................................................................................120Surveys ................................................................................................121Affin�ty D�agram ....................................................................................122Affin�ty D�agram (Example) ..................................................................123Pa�rw�se Rank�ng ......................................................................... 124-125Pa�rw�se Rank�ng (Example) ..............................................................125Pareto Chart .........................................................................................126Benchmark�ng ......................................................................................127Flowchart�ng .......................................................................................128Standard Flowchart Symbols ..............................................................129Deployment Flowcharts ...............................................................129–130Nom�nal Group Techn�que (NGT) ................................................131–132Creat�ve Problem Solv�ng ....................................................................133Knot Chart ............................................................................................134Qual�tat�ve Problem Solv�ng .................................................................135Gantt Chart ..........................................................................................136

ChAPTER 2—LEADERShIP AND MANAGERIAL SKILLS (CONTINUED)


x��


1

ChAPTER 1ACqUISITION MANAGEMENT

• Th�ngs that make you go “Hmmm?...” “The only th�ng most aud�tors fix �s the blame.”

“Exper�ence �s someth�ng you got just after you needed �t.”

“People are smarter than they look; l�sten to them.” “The last 10 percent of the performance sought generates one-th�rd

of the cost and two-th�rds of the problems.”

“Never open a can of worms unless you want to go fish�ng.”

“Those who bel�eve �t cannot be done, w�ll you please get out of the way of those who are busy do�ng �t?”

• Th�ngs we should always remember.

“Be honest �n everyth�ng you say, wr�te, and do.” “Be good to your people, and they w�ll be good to you.”

“Forg�veness �s eas�er to obta�n than perm�ss�on.”

“Keep everyone �nformed; when �n doubt, coord�nate.”

“Be the first to del�ver bad news.”

“Bad news does not get any better w�th t�me.”

“If you are s�tt�ng at your desk, you are not manag�ng your program.”


2

ThE PROGRAM MANAGER’S bILL OF RIGhTSAND RESPONSIbILITIES

RIGHTS:

Program Managers have the RIGHT to:

• a s�ngle, clear l�ne of author�ty from the Defense Acqu�s�t�on Execut�ve;

• author�ty commensurate w�th the�r respons�b�l�t�es;• t�mely sen�or leadersh�p dec�s�ons;• be cand�d and forthcom�ng w�thout fear of personal consequences;• speak for the�r program and have the�r judgments respected;• rece�ve the best ava�lable tra�n�ng and exper�ence for the job; and • be g�ven adequate financ�al and personnel resources.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Program Managers have the RESPONSIBILITY to:

• accept program d�rect�on from acqu�s�t�on execut�ves and �mplement �t exped�t�ously and consc�ent�ously;

• manage the�r programs to the best of the�r ab�l�t�es w�th�n approved resources;

• be customer-focused and prov�de the user w�th the best, most cost-effect�ve systems or capab�l�t�es;

• �nnovate, str�ve for opt�mal solut�ons, seek better ways to manage, and prov�de lessons-learned to those who follow;

• be cand�d about program status, �nclud�ng r�sks and problems as well as potent�al solut�ons and l�kely outcomes;

• prepare thorough est�mates of financ�al and personnel resources that w�ll be requ�red to manage the program; and

• �dent�fy weaknesses �n the acqu�s�t�on process and propose solut�ons.


3

DE

FE

NS

E A

Cq

UIS

ITIO

N D

EC

ISIO

N P

OIN

TS

AN

D P

hA

SE

S(D

oD

I 500

0.2)

AB

C

Pre-

Syst

ems

Acqu

isiti

onUSEr

NEE

DS &

TECH

NOLO

GY

OPP

OrT

UNIT

IES

PrO

DUCT

ION

&DE

PLOY

MEN

TO

PErA

TIO

NS&

SUPP

OrT

SYST

EM D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

& D

EMO

NSTr

ATIO

N

frP

DECI

SIO

NrE

VIEw

DESI

GN

rEAD

INES

SrE

VIEw Sy

stem

s Ac

quis

ition

Sust

ainm

ent

• P

roce

ss e

ntry

at M

ilest

ones

A, B

, or

C•

Ent

ranc

e cr

iteria

met

bef

ore

ente

ring

phas

e•

Evo

lutio

nary

acq

uisi

tion

or s

ingl

e st

ep to

full

capa

bilit

y

CONC

EPT

rEfI

NEM

ENT

CONC

EPT

DECI

SIO

N

Prog

ram

Initi

atio

n

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T


4

� DAB Review � Designated by DAE � Decision by DAE � Component Review � Designated by DAE � Decision by Service Sec/CAE

� ITAB Review*� Designated by ASD(NII)**� Decision by ASD(NII) � Component Review � Designated by ASD(NII) � Decision made by Svc Sec/CAE

� Does Not Meet ACAT I Criteria � Designated by Svc Sec/CAE � Decision by Svc Sec/CAE

� Does Not Meet ACAT I, IA, or II Criteria

� Designated IAW Component Policy

� Decision at lowest appropriate level

� Not otherwise designated ACAT I, IA, II, or III

� Designated IAW Component Policy � Navy/USMC ACAT IVT/IVM � Decision at lowest appropriate level

ACAT ID:

ACAT IC:

ACAT IAM:

ACAT IAC:

ACAT II:

ACAT III:

ACAT IV:

MajorDefenseAcquisition Programs

Major AISAcquisition Programs

MajorSystems

All Others(except Navy and USMC)

NavyUSMC

ACqUISITION CATEGORIES (ACAT)

SECNAVINST 5000.2_

No Fiscal Criteria

$140M RDT&E or $660M Procurement (FY 00 Constant $)

$378M Life Cycle Cost or $126M Total Program Cost or $32M Program Cost in any single year (FY 00 Constant $)

$365M RDT&E or $2.190B Procurement (FY 00 Constant $)

* Information Technology Acquisition Board** ASD for Networks and Information Integration (NII); formerly ASD(C3I)


5

ACqUISITION STRATEGy CONSIDERATIONS(Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 2)

• Program Structure• Acquisition Approach• Capability Needs• Test and Evaluation• Risk Management• Resource Management

— Funding Under an Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy

— Advance Procurement• Systems Engineering Plan• Interoperability

— Information Interoperability— Other than Information Interoperability

• Information Technology• Research and Technology Protection

— Protection of Critical Information— Anti-Tamper Measures

• Information Assurance• Product Support Strategy• Human Systems Integration• Environmental Safety and Occupational

Health• Modular Open Systems Approach• Business Considerations

— Competition◆ Fostering a Competitive Environment

– Competition Advocates– Ensuring Future Competition for

Defense Products◆ Building Competition into Individual

Acquisition Strategies– Applying Competition to Acquisition

Phases– Applying Competition to Evolutionary

Acquisition– Competition and Source of Support– Industry Involvement

◆ Potential Obstacles to Competition– Exclusive Teaming Arrangement– Sub-Tier Competition

◆ Potential Sources– Market Research– Commercial and Nondevelopmental

Items– Dual-Use Technologies– Use of Commercial Plants– Industrial Capability

◆ Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Technologies

— International Cooperation◆ International Cooperative Strategy◆ International Interoperability◆ International Cooperation Compliance◆ Testing Required for Foreign Military

Sales— Contract Approach

◆ Performance-Based Business Strategy

◆ Modular Contracting◆ Contract Bundling◆ Major Contract(s) Planned◆ Multi-Year Contracting◆ Contract Type◆ Contract Incentives◆ Integrated Contract Performance

Management◆ Special Contract Terms and Conditions◆ Warranties◆ Component Breakout

— Leasing— Equipment Valuation

◆ Program Description◆ Accounting Review◆ Contract Implications

• Best Practices• Relief, Exemption, or Waiver• Additional Acquisition Strategy Topics

NOTE: In addition to the Acquisition Strategy, there are five plans required: Acquisition Plan (FAR/DFARS), Program Protection Plan and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (DoDI 5000.2), Information Support Plan (ISP) (CJCSI 6212.01D), and Systems Engineering Plan (USD AT&L Memo February 20, 2004).


6

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Knowledge Sharing System (AKSS)

The AKSS portal �s the new knowledge repos�tory component of the AT&L Knowledge Management System (AKMS). It �s the pr�mary reference tool for the Defense AT&L commun�ty, and

�t prov�des a central po�nt to access and organ�ze AT&L resources and �nformat�on. AKSS has a personal�zed search, sort, and d�splay capab�l-�ty, and �t prov�des a means to l�nk �nformat�on and reference assets from var�ous d�sc�pl�nes �nto an �ntegrated �nformat�on source. The AKSS portal prov�des d�rect l�nks to DoD acqu�s�t�on pol�c�es, �nclud�ng USD(AT&L) memoranda, Federal Acqu�s�t�on Regulat�on, and Defense Federal Acqu�s�t�on Regulat�on Supplement, as well as department and serv�ce gu�dance and �nstruct�ons. In add�t�on, the AKSS portal �s a trusted source of �nformat�on on acqu�s�t�on news, Web s�tes, tra�n�ng opportun�t�es, and other relevant �nformat�on. To learn more, go to <https://akss.dau.m�l> and take the onl�ne v�rtual tour.

Ask a Professor (AAP) <https://akss.dau.m�l/aap> �s a serv�ce of-fered as part of AKSS. Users subm�t acqu�s�t�on-related quest�ons and rece�ve formal responses. In add�t�on, the AAP conta�ns a data-base of quest�ons and answers that are categor�zed by subject area and can be browsed or searched.

Acquisition Community Connection (ACC)

The ACC �s the collaborat�ve component of the AKMS that focuses on acqu�s�t�on-related top�cs and d�sc�pl�nes such as contract�ng, log�st�cs, program management, and r�sk

management. It cons�sts of Commun�t�es of Pract�ce, Spec�al Interest Areas, and collaborat�ve workspaces that

• connect people w�th know-how across DoD organ�zat�ons and �ndustry;• enable members to �nteract and share resources, �deas, and exper�-

ences to support job performance and avo�d dupl�cat�on of effort; and • �dent�fy partnersh�p development opportun�t�es.

Members may request workspaces �n ACC, wh�ch prov�de a way for phys�cally d�spersed �nd�v�duals to centrally locate and share docu-ments and references as well as manage team projects. To learn more, go to https://acc.dau.m�l and take the onl�ne v�rtual tour.

ACqUISITION, TEChNOLOGy AND LOGISTICS (AT&L) KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SySTEM

(Composed of the following systems)

https://akss.dau.mil

https://akss.dau.mil/aap

https://acc.dau.mil


7

DEfENSE AcquISITION GuIDEBOOk (DAG)The DAG <https://akss.dau.m�l/dag> prov�des l�nks to pol�cy, law, and useful content housed �n commun�t�es of pract�ce. It allows users to nav�gate through the Guidebook v�a a document �ndex, graph�cal �nterface (L�fe Cycle Framework), or a search by top�c.

INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK ChART (IFC)The AT&L IFC <https://acc.dau.m�l/�fc> �s a p�ctor�al road map of key act�v�t�es �n the systems acqu�s�t�on process. Users nav�gate through a graph�cal model of the three major acqu�s�t�on process areas: Jo�nt Capab�l�t�es Integrat�on and Development System (JCIDS); Defense Acqu�s�t�on; and Plann�ng, Programm�ng, Budget�ng, and Execut�on (PPB&E).

BA C

User Needs & Technology Opportunities

Designreadinessreview

ConceptDecision

full-rateProductionDecision review

Production & DeploymentConceptrefinement

TechnologyDevelopment

System Development& Demonstration

Operations& Support

IOC

• Process entry at Milestones A, B, or C• Entrance criteria met before entering phase• Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capacity

Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment

(ProgramInitiation) fOC

https://akss.dau.mil/dag

https://acc.dau.mil/ifc


8

AT&L ACquire

ACQu�re <http://acqu�re.dau.m�l> �s a search tool focused on the spec�fic needs of the acqu�s�t�on workforce. It uses the DAU acqu�s�t�on taxonomy, trusted acqu�s�t�on s�tes, and selected AT&L resources to enhance searches and der�ve better results. Searches can be conducted by �nd�v�dual or mult�ple s�tes; document t�tles; top�c; content, v�a an �ndex of major categor�es; and subcategor�es.

Courseware �s also searchable v�a ACQu�re. Users can suggest add�t�onal AT&L s�tes that should be �ncluded �n ACQu�re crawls.

bEST PRACTICES CLEARINGhOUSE (bPCh)The BPCh �s an �nnovat�ve “clear�nghouse” approach that w�ll �mprove all DoD’s acqu�s�t�on processes by help�ng programs select and �mplement proven pract�ces appropr�ate to the �nd�v�dual program needs. In�t�ally, the BPCh w�ll focus on software acqu�s�t�on and systems eng�neer�ng.

The Clear�nghouse prov�des:• an author�tat�ve source for pract�ces, lessons learned, and r�sks to

avo�d;• val�dated pract�ces w�th cons�stent, ver�fiable �nformat�on;• an act�ve knowledge base to help w�th pract�ce quest�ons;• an �ntell�gent front-end to qu�ckly get to answers;• useful �nformat�on and tools to help find, select, and �mplement

pract�ces appropr�ate to spec�fic programs; and• l�v�ng knowledge through a constantly updated, expanded, and

refined database.

PROCESS PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING TOOLS Process Performance and Learn�ng Tools (PPLTs) l�nk learn�ng and job support assets to compl�cated process flow to help users create plans and other AT&L products accurately and effic�ently. The follow�ng PPLTs have been developed:• Pr�c�ng Support Tool <http://pr�c�ngtool.dau.m�l>• Performance Based Log�st�cs Toolk�t <https://acc.dau.m�l/pbltoolk�t>

http://acquire.dau.mil


9

DEFENSE ACqUISITION bOARD TIMELINE MILESTONES b, C, AND FRPDR

MILESTONE DECISION INFORMATION—A POSSIbLE CONSTRUCT

OIPTReviewOIPT

Review

Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) Meetings

JROCReviewJROC

Review

3-4 wEEKS

2 wEEKS2 wEEKS

Milestone

45 DAYS

180 DAYS

30 DAYS

DABDAB

TEMP to USD(AT&L)/

DOT&E

JCBReviewJCB

Review

21 DAYS

CAIG reviewDraft POE

Draft CArD to CAIG

final CArD

to CAIG

CAIG Briefs Preliminary LCCE to PM

AoA results to

PA&E

60 DAYS

CAIG final LCCE to PM

10 DAYS

final POE & Component

Cost Position to CAIG

3 DAYS

CAIG report to

OIPT

• ADM - Acquisition Decision Memorandum • CAIG - Cost Analysis Improvements Group • CARD - Cost Analysis Requirements Description • DAB - Defense Acquisition Board• FRPDR - Full Rate Production Decision Review • JCB - Joint Capabilities Board• JROC - Joint Requirements Oversight Council • LCCE - Life Cycle Cost Estimate(s)


10

INfOrMATION fOr MILESTONE/DECISION rEVIEwS(See DoDI 5000.2, CJCSI 3170.01F, and CJCSI 6212.01D)

Milestone/review Information CD A B Drr C frPAcquisition Decision Memorandum5 X X X X X XAcquisition Program Baseline5 X X XAcquisition Strategy5 (see Page 5) X X XAffordability Assessment X XAnalysis of Alternatives3&5 (AOA) X X X XAOA Plan XBenefit Analysis and Determination1&8 (bundled acquisitions) XBeyond LRIP Report2 XCapabilities Development Document (CDD)5 XCapabilities Production Document (CPD) XCertification of Compliance with Clinger-Cohen7 X X X XCertification of Compliance with BEA7 (FM MAIS only) X X X XClinger-Cohen Act Compliance5&7 (MS-A, MAIS only) X X X XCompetition Analysis1&8 (depot-level maintenance rule) XCompliance with Strategic Plan XComponent Cost Analysis5&9 (MAIS; optional MDAP) X XConsideration of Technology Issues X X XCooperative Opportunities1 X XCore Logistics/Source of Repair Analysis1&8 XCost Analysis Requirements Description5&9 (MDAP and MAIS) X X XEconomic Analysis (MAIS)7 (may be combined w/AoA at MS-A) X X XExit Criteria5 X X X X XIndustrial Capabilities1 (n/a MAIS) X XIndependent Cost and Manpower Estimate5 (MDAPs; n/a MAIS) X X XIndependent Tech. Assessment (ACAT ID only) (DDR&E Option) X XInformation Support Plan1&5 X XInitial Capabilities Document (ICD)4&5 X X X XJ-6 Interoperability and Supportability Certification X XJ-6 Interoperability and Supportability Validation XLive Fire T&E Waiver2 (covered systems) (n/a MAIS) X Live Fire T&E Report2 (covered systems) (n/a MAIS) XLRIP Quantities (n/a AIS) XMarket Research X XMilestone A Certification XMilestone B Certification XOperational Test Agency Report of OT&E Results X X XPost Deployment Performance Review XProgram Protection Plan1 X XPgm Environ, Safety and Occup Health5 (w/NEPA schedule) X X XRegistration of Msn Critical and Msn Essential Info Sys5&7 X X XSpectrum Certification Compliance8 X XSystem Threat Assessment5&6 X XSystems Engineering Plan X X X XTechnology Development Strategy (MDAP and MAIS) X X XTechnology Readiness Assessment5 X XTest and Evaluation Master Plan (T&E Strategy only due at MS A) X X X X

1. Summarized in Acquisition Strategy2. OSD T&E oversight programs only3. MDAP: A, B, C; MAIS: A, B, FRPDR4. Milestone C if program initiation

5. Program initiation for ships6. Validated by DIA for ACAT ID;

AIS use capstone InfoOps sys threat assessment decision

7. Milestone C if equivalent to FRP8. Milestone C if no milestone B9. MAIS whenever an economic

analysis is required


11

INT

ER

OP

ER

Ab

ILIT

yD

oD

Po

licy:

Do

D P

olic

y: D

oD

Dir

ecti

ve 4

630.

05

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd N

atio

nal S

ecur

ity S

yste

ms

empl

oyed

by

U.S

. For

ces

shal

l, w

here

requ

ired

(bas

ed o

n ca

pabi

lity c

onte

xt),

inte

rope

rate

with

exis

ting

and

plan

ned

syst

ems

and

equi

pmen

t, of

join

t, co

mbi

ned,

and

coa

lition

forc

es a

nd w

ith o

ther

U.S

. Gov

ernm

ent

depa

rtmen

ts a

nd a

genc

ies,

as

appr

opria

te.

Join

t S

taff

(J-

6) C

erti

fica

tio

n a

nd

val

idat

ion

Serv

ice/

Agen

cy

Uni

ted

Stat

es J

oint

Fo

rces

Com

man

d re

view

s N

et-R

eady

Key

Pe

rform

ance

Par

amet

ers

(NR

-KPP

) and

inte

grat

ed

arch

itect

ures

J-6

Inte

rop

erab

ility

an

d S

up

po

rtab

ility

Cer

tifi

cati

on

Join

tSt

aff

Join

tSt

aff

Com

bata

ntC

omm

ands

J-6

Sys

tem

s v

alid

atio

n

• JI

TC w

itnes

ses/

cond

ucts

inte

rope

rabi

lity

test

s, a

nd•

Prov

ides

Joi

nt In

tero

pera

bilit

y Te

st C

ertifi

catio

n to

J-6

fo

r val

idat

ion

J-6

Valid

atio

nTE

MP/

Test

Res

ults

JITC

CD

DC

PD ISP*

LEG

END:

CDD:

Cap

abilit

y De

velo

pmen

t Doc

umen

tC

PD: C

apab

ility

Prod

uctio

n D

ocum

ent

ISP:

Info

rmat

ion

Supp

ort P

lan

J-6

Cer

tifica

tion

Serv

ice/

Agen

cy

*NR

-KPP

cer

tifica

tion

JITC

: Joi

nt In

tero

pera

bility

Test

Com

man

dTE

MP:

Tes

t and

Eva

luat

ion

Man

agem

ent

Plan


12

S&

T L

INK

AG

E T

O D

EF

EN

SE

AC

qU

ISIT

ION

PR

OC

ES

S

Op

tio

ns

(1)

Co

nce

pts

fo

r n

ew s

yste

ms/

up

gra

de

syst

ems

ou

t o

f p

rod

uct

ion

.(2

) In

sert

into

on

go

ing

sys

tem

s d

evel

op

men

t o

r co

mp

lete

JC

TD

d

evel

op

men

t.(3

) U

pg

rad

e sy

stem

in p

rod

uct

ion

/ fi

eld

ed s

yste

ms

or

JCT

D.

(4)

Use

of

new

tec

hn

olo

gy

for

dem

ilita

riza

tio

n/d

isp

osa

l.

War

fig

hti

ng

Nee

ds

&R

&D

Ob

ject

ives

Sys

tem

s

S&

T

•B

asic

Res

earc

h•

Ap

plie

d R

esea

rch

•Jo

int

Cap

abili

ty T

ech

no

log

y D

emo

nst

rati

on

(JC

TD

)•

Ad

van

ced

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Dem

on

stra

tio

n (

AT

D)

•L

ab/F

ield

Dem

o•

War

fig

hti

ng

Exp

erim

ents

ST

OP

ST

OP

(1)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(3)

IOC

BA

Sys

tem

Dev

elo

pm

ent

& D

emo

nst

rati

on

Pro

du

ctio

n &

Dep

loym

ent

Op

erat

ion

s&

Su

pp

ort

C

Co

nce

pt

Ref

inem

ent

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Sys

tem

D

esig

nS

yste

m

Dem

on

stra

tio

nL

RIP

Fu

ll-R

ate

Pro

d &

D

eplo

ymen

t

Rea

din

ess

Rev

iew

FR

PD

ecis

ion

Rev

iew

Lif

e-C

ycle

S

ust

ain

men

t D

isp

osa

l

FO

C

Co

nce

pt

Dec

isio

n

ove

rsig

ht

pan

elO

vers

igh

tP

anel

MD

AD

EC

ISIO

NO

vers

igh

tP

anel

Ad

v T

ech

Dev

Tec

h B

ase

Des

ign


13

JOIN

T C

APA

bIL

ITIE

S T

EC

hN

OL

OG

y D

EM

ON

ST

RA

TIO

N (

JCT

D)

10

-ST

EP

LIF

E-C

yC

LE

PR

OC

ES

S F

LO

W CRB

Brie

f

JCTD

COCOM J(x), CoS, or CDR

Submit Proposal

COCO

M S

pons

or w

ithSe

rvic

e/Ag

ency

Par

tner

sPr

opos

al P

acka

ge W

orks

hop

JCTD

Can

dida

te a

nd Te

am F

orm

ulat

ion

and

Prop

osal

Pac

kage

Dev

elop

men

t� J

oint

� C

oalit

ion

� In

tera

genc

y

� A

S&C

Fund

s to

See

d� C

OCO

M L

ead

� O

Es, P

roce

ss S

ME

� D

emon

stra

tion,

As

sess

men

t &

Tran

sitio

n� F

inal

Rep

ortin

g

� R

ate

and

Rank

� J

ROC

Valid

atio

n

� D

USD(

AS&C

) Sel

ectio

n &

US

D(AT

&L) A

ppro

val

� C

ongr

essi

onal

Not

ifica

tion

� Im

plem

enta

tion

Dire

ctio

n

Step

1St

ep 2

Step

3

Step

9 &

10

Step

6, 7

, & 8

Step

4 &

5

COCO

MPr

iorit

ized

Need

s


14

AC

qU

ISIT

ION

PR

OG

RA

M v

s. A

TD

AN

D J

CT

D

LEG

END:

ACAT

—Ac

quisi

tion

Cat

egor

y C

DD

—C

apab

ility

Dev

elop

men

t Doc

umen

tC

PD—

Cap

abilit

y Pr

oduc

tion

Doc

umen

t

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n D

irec

tive

/ FA

R/O

TA

• G

ain

un

der

stan

din

g o

f an

d e

valu

ate

uti

lity

pri

or

to a

cqu

isit

ion

dec

isio

n•

Dev

elo

p c

on

cep

ts o

f o

per

atio

n a

nd

do

ctri

ne

JRO

C A

pp

rova

l an

d

Pri

ori

tiza

tio

n

Ro

le o

f U

ser

Mo

tiva

tio

n

Do

cum

ente

dN

eed

Ove

rsig

ht

Fu

nd

ing

AC

AT

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

an

d T

esti

ng

Ru

les

Fu

lly F

yD

P F

un

ded

Acq

uis

itio

n

Pro

gra

m

• D

evel

op

, pro

du

ce,

and

fiel

d s

yste

m•

Co

st, s

ched

ule

, p

erfo

rman

ce

ICD

/CD

D/C

PD

Mile

sto

ne

Dec

isio

n

Au

tho

rity

Do

D 5

000

Ser

ies/

FA

R

All

AC

AT

s

Sys

tem

/Su

bsy

stem

P

roto

typ

es D

T/O

T

Max

Invo

lvem

ent

Ad

van

ced

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Dem

on

stra

tio

n (

AT

D)

No

t A

CA

T E

ffo

rt

• D

emo

nst

rate

fea

sib

ility

an

d m

atu

rity

• R

edu

ce t

ech

nic

al r

isks

an

d u

nce

rtai

nti

es a

t re

lati

vely

low

co

st

No

t R

equ

ired

Lab

s/R

&D

Cen

ters

RD

T&

E

Tech

no

log

y D

emo

nst

rati

on

s

Info

rmal

/FA

R/O

TA

So

me

Invo

lvem

ent

Join

t C

apab

ility

Tec

h

Dem

on

stra

tio

n (

JCT

D)

DU

SD

(AS

C)

Ove

rsig

ht

Pan

el

RD

T&

E (

2 ye

ars

in fi

eld

)

No

t A

CA

T E

ffo

rt

Max

Invo

lvem

ent

Tech

Dem

on

stra

tio

ns

In F

ield

E

nvir

on

men

t/M

UA

DT/

OT—

Dev

elop

men

tal/O

pera

tiona

l Tes

ting

DU

SD(A

S&C

)—D

eput

y U

nder

Sec

Def

(A

dvan

ced

Syst

ems

and

Con

cept

s)FA

R—

Fede

ral A

cqui

sitio

n R

egul

atio

n

FYD

P—Fu

ture

Yea

rs D

efen

se P

rogr

am

ICD

—In

itial C

apab

ilitie

s D

ocum

ent

MU

A—M

ilitar

y U

tility

Ass

essm

ent


15

PR

OG

RA

M S

TR

UC

TU

RE

/SC

hE

DU

LE

(E

XA

MP

LE

)

Co

ntr

act

Aw

ard

(in

crem

ent

1)

RD

T&

EP

rocu

rem

ent

O&

MM

ILC

ON

Fy 0

1 F

y 0

2 F

y 0

3 F

y 0

4 F

y 0

5 F

y 0

6 F

y 0

7 F

y 0

8 F

y 0

9 F

y 1

0 F

y 1

1 F

y 1

2 F

y 1

3 F

y 1

4

CR

Te

ch D

evS

ys In

teg

S

ys D

emo

Sys

tem

Dev

el a

nd

Dem

o

CR

A

b

Pro

toty

pe

Co

mp

etit

ion

DR

R

FR

PC

IOC

bF

RP

IOC

FR

PC

SI

SD

PR

OD

C

Mile

sto

nes

Rev

iew

s

and

Ph

ases

Tech

nic

alR

evie

ws

(in

crem

ent

1)

Test

ing

(in

crem

ent

1)

Del

iver

ies

(in

crem

ent

1)

OA

FO

T&

E

ED

M

EO

A

LR

IP

Pro

du

ctio

n

LR

IP

F

ull-

Rat

e P

rod

an

d D

epl

Sus

tain

men

t/Dis

posa

l

Incr

2

Incr

3

(en

g d

ev m

od

els)

DT

&E

LF

T&

E

IOT

&E

SR

R

DR

R

PC

AP

DR

AS

R

TD

Pro

d &

Dep

loym

ent

Op

erat

ion

s &

Su

pp

ort

CD

LR

IP

SF

R

Fu

ll-R

ate

Pro

d &

Dep

l

bIO

C

Fu

ll-R

ate

Pro

d

DR

R

CD

RS

RR


16

DoD INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENTS COOPERATION POLICy

ThE SCOPE OF DEFENSE COOPERATION

Production and rDT&E Procurement follow-on Support

Information Foreign Military Sales Cooperative LogisticsExchanges Supply Support

Engineer and Direct Commercial Sales Mutual SupportScientist Exchanges Exchanges

Cooperative R&D Cooperative Production Logistics Support (Joint Funds)

Comparative or Coproduction/Licensing Host Nation SupportJoint Testing (Foreign Funds) Defense Industrial BaseStandardization Reciprocal Procurement

The Program Manager’s Focus

“PMs shall pursue �nternat�onal armaments cooperat�on to the max�mum extent feas�ble, cons�stent w�th sound bus�ness pract�ce and w�th the overall pol�t�cal, econom�c, technolog�cal, and nat�onal secur�ty goals of the Un�ted States. Internat�onal agreements for �nternat�onal armaments cooperat�on programs shall complete the �nteragency consultat�on and Congress�onal not�ficat�on requ�rements conta�ned �n 10 U.S.C. 2350a, Sect�on 2751 of the Arms Export Control Act, and 10 U.S.C. 2531.”

— DoDD 5000.1 (Para E1.1.1)


17

INTERNATIONAL ACTIvITIES ASSOCIATED WITh DEFENSE ACqUISITION PhASES

Cooperat�ve Product�onCoproduct�on L�censed Product�on Product�on Shar�ngFore�gn M�l�tary Sales

Technology Opportunitiesand User Capability Needs

NATO ForumsDEAs/IEPsStaff TalksS&E Exchanges

Cooperat�ve DevelopmentInternat�onal Test�ng

Concept Refinement andTechnology Development

System Demonstration of SDD Phase

Production andDeployment, Sustainment

DEFENSE SALES vs. COOPERATIvE ACqUISITION

Legend:DEA—Data Exchange AgreementIEP—Information Exchange ProjectS&E—Science and Engineering

They are Different

• Defense Sales– Any Nat�on– U.S. Contracts (FMS)– U.S. Manages (FMS)– Product�on and Support– Dept. of State or Dept.

of Commerce + DoD – USD(Pol�cy)

– Fore�gn In�t�ated– Fore�gn Funds (or U.S. Cred�t/Grants)

• Cooperative Acquisition– All�ed or Fr�endly– U.S., Ally or NATO– Jo�ntly Managed– All Acqu�s�t�on– DoD – USD(AT&L) +

Dept. of State and Dept. of Commerce

– U.S. and/or Fore�gn– Fore�gn + U.S. Funds


18

RE

SO

UR

CE

AL

LO

CA

TIO

N P

RO

CE

SS

—O

vE

RL

AP

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

CY08

CY09

CY10

Exec

utio

n

Prog

ram

min

g &

Budg

etin

gPl

anni

ng

FY09

FY08

& p

rior

FY09

& p

rior FY

10

FY10

& p

rior

GDF

/JPG

* FY1

1-15

POM

FY1

2-17

Budg

et F

Y12-

13

FYDP

Cha

nges

FY1

1-15

Budg

et C

hang

es F

Y11

FY11

FY11

&pr

ior

GDF

/JPG

FY1

2-17

GDF

/JPG

*FY

10-1

5

POM

FY1

0-15

Budg

et F

Y10-

11

*GDF

SEC

DEF

opt

ion

in o

ff ye

ar

JF

MA

MJ

AS

ON

DJ

JF

MA

MJ

AS

ON

DJ

JF

MA

MJ

AS

ON

DJ

Prog

ram

min

g &

Budg

etin

gEn

actm

ent

Exec

utio

nPl

anni

ng

Enac

tmen

tEx

ecut

ion

Prog

ram

min

g &

Budg

etin

gEn

actm

ent

Plan

ning

Exec

utio

n


19

PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, bUDGETING, AND EXECUTION (PPbE)—PLANNING PhASE

Legend:CJCS—Cha�rman of the Jo�nt Ch�efs of Staff CPR—Cha�rman’s Program Recommendat�onGDF—Gu�dance for Development of the Force

JPG— Jo�nt Programm�ng Gu�danceNMS—Nat�onal M�l�tary StrategyNDS—Nat�onal Defense StrategyNSS—Nat�onal Secur�ty StrategyQDR—Quadrenn�al Defense Rev�ew

PPbE—ON-yEAR PROGRAM/bUDGET REvIEW

APR/MAYSEP FEB MAR

SECDEF

QDR

Joint Staff, OSD, Unified Commands, MilDeps,

Defence Agencies, etc. …

NMS CPR

GDF JPG

SECDEF

As needed

PresidentNational Security

Council

CJCSUnified Commands

Military Depts/Def Agencies

NSS

SECDEFJoint Staff/OSD

NDS

FiscalGuidance

1st Year 2nd Year

NOTE: GDF replaces SPG

BES PBMBI

Questions/Hearings

AUG FEBOCT

Issue Papers/Resolution

POM

OSD/OMB

CPA

DECNOV

CJCS

OSD/OMB

UpdatesFYDP

UpdatesFYDP

PBDs

SECDEF/DEPSECDEF

Components (PEO/PM) Answer/Reclama

PDM

ComponentsMilitary DeptsDefense AgenciesUnified Commands

(DAWG, 3 Star Group)

Legend:BES—Budget Estimate Submission COCOM—Combatant CommanderCPA—Chairman’s Program Assessment DAWG—Deputies Advisory Working Group

FYDP—Future Years Defense ProgramMBI—Major Budget IssuesPB—President’s BudgetPBD—Program Budget Decision

PEO/PM—Program Executive Officer/ Program ManagerPDM—Program Decision MemorandumPOM—Program Objectives Memorandum


20

RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS

PPbE—OFF-yEAR PROGRAM / bUDGET REvIEW (ODD yEAR)

(e.g., FY 09–13 (Aug 07—Feb 08))

• No Program Object�ves Memorandum subm�ss�ons• Focus pr�or�ty on FY 09• Program of Record (POR) rema�ns FY 08 Pres�dent’s Budget• M�n�m�ze programmat�c changes• Change Proposal (CP) �s veh�cle to request changes to POR• No FYDP update unt�l FY 09 PB• Complete Budget Est�mate Subm�ss�on prov�ded to the Office of

the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) must �ncorporate all basel�ne changes

• Program/Budget Rev�ew Process– 3-Star Group oversees CP rev�ew– Deputy’s Adv�sory Work�ng Group cons�ders major �ssues and

adv�ses SECDEF– Budget �ssues rev�ewed and coord�nated through Program

Budget Dec�s�on (PBD) process– SECDEF makes final resource dec�s�ons– Approved changes and dec�s�ons documented �n Program

Dec�s�on Memorandums and PBDs

DoD

President& OMB

CongressAuthorizationCommittees

AppropriationCommittees

Testimony

Authorization/AppropriationActs Passed

Phase I:

PPBE

President’sBudget

Allocation/Execution

Phase IV:

Phase III:

Phase II: Enactment

BudgetCommittees

Appeals

Apportionment


21

CO

NG

RE

SS

ION

AL

EN

AC

TM

EN

T T

IME

TAb

LE

15

15

^

^

^

BU

DG

ETr

ESO

LUTI

ON

AU

THO

rIZ

ATI

ON

APP

rO

PrIA

TIO

N

JAN

fEB

AP

rM

Ar

MA

YJU

NJU

LA

UG

SE

PO

CT

“TA

rG

ET”

fIS

CA

LY

EA

r

PrES

BU

DG

ET CO

MM

ITTE

EIN

PUTS

HO

USE

SEN

ATE

HO

USE

SEN

ATE

AC

T

CO

Nf/

rEP

T

CO

Nf/

rEP

T

fLO

Or

fLO

Or

fLO

Or

fLO

Or

fLO

Or

Hr

NG

S M

Ar

KS

fLO

Or

BIL

L/r

PT

BIL

L/r

PT

BIL

L/r

PT

BIL

L/r

PT

HO

USE

SEN

ATE

rES

OLU

TIO

NC

ON

f

Hr

NG

S M

Ar

KS

fLO

Or

HA

SC H

rN

GS

M

Ar

K-U

P

fLO

Or

SASC

Hr

NG

S

MA

rK

-UP

fL

OO

r

HA

C H

rN

GS

M

Ar

K-U

P

fLO

Or

SAC

Hr

NG

S

MA

rK

-UP

fL

OO

r

AC

T

^

fLO

Or


22

PROCUREMENT APPROPRIATIONS(Account Numbers and budget Activities)

Appropriation BudgetActivity

Army (21 -)

A�rcraft - 2031 1 A�rcraft 2 Mod�ficat�on of A�rcraft 3 Spares and Repa�r Parts 4 Support Equ�pment and Fac�l�t�esM�ss�le - 2032 1 Not Used 2 Other M�ss�les 3 Mod�ficat�on of M�ss�les 4 Spares and Repa�r Parts 5 Support Equ�pment and Fac�l�t�es

Weapons and Tracked - 2033 1 Tracked Combat Veh�cles Combat Veh�cles 2 Weapons and Other Combat Veh�cles 3 Spares and Repa�r PartsAmmo - 2034 1 Ammo 2 Ammo Product�on Base SupportOther - 2035 1 Tact�cal and Support Veh�cle 2 Commun�cat�ons and Electron�cs 3 Other Support Equ�pment 4 In�t�al Spares

Navy (17 -)

A�rcraft - 1506 1 Combat A�rcraft 2 A�rl�ft A�rcraft 3 Tra�ner A�rcraft 4 Other A�rcraft 5 Mod�ficat�on of A�rcraft 6 A�rcraft Spares and Repa�r Parts 7 A�rcraft Support Equ�pment and Fac�l�t�esWeapons - 1507 1 Ball�st�c M�ss�les 2 Other M�ss�les 3 Torpedoes and Related Equ�pment 4 Other Weapons 5 Not Used 6 Spares and Repa�r PartsAmmo, Navy and - 1508 1 Ammo, Navy Mar�ne Corps 2 Ammo, Mar�ne Corps

Sh�pbu�ld�ng - 1611 1 Not Used and Convers�on 2 Other Warsh�ps 3 Amph�b�ous Sh�ps 4 Not Used 5 Aux�l�ar�es, Craft, and Pr�or-Year Program CostsOther - 1810 1 Sh�ps Support Costs 2 Commun�cat�ons and Electron�cs Equ�pment 3 Av�at�on Support Equ�pment 4 Ordnance Support Equ�pment 5 C�v�l Eng�neer�ng Support Equ�pment 6 Supply Support Equ�pment


23

PROCUREMENT APPROPRIATIONS(Account Numbers and budget Activities) (Cont�nued)

Other (cont�nued) -1810 7 Personnel and Command Support Equ�pment 8 Spares and Repa�r Parts

Marine corps (17 -)

Procurement - 1109 1 Not Used 2 Weapons and Combat Veh�cles 3 Gu�ded M�ss�les and Equ�pment 4 Commun�cat�ons and Electron�cs Equ�pment 5 Support Veh�cles 6 Eng�neer�ng and Other Equ�pment 7 Spares and Repa�r Parts

Air force (57 -)

A�rcraft - 3010 1 Combat A�rcraft 2 A�rl�ft A�rcraft 3 Tra�ner A�rcraft 4 Other A�rcraft 5 Mod�ficat�on of In-Serv�ce A�rcraft 6 A�rcraft Spares and Repa�r Parts 7 A�rcraft Support Equ�pment and Fac�l�t�es

M�ss�le - 3020 1 Ball�st�c M�ss�les 2 Other M�ss�les 3 Mod�ficat�on of In-Serv�ce M�ss�les 4 Spares and Repa�r Parts 5 Other Support

Ammo - 3011 1 Ammo 2 Weapons

Other - 3080 1 Not Used 2 Veh�cular Equ�pment 3 Electron�cs and Telecommun�cat�ons Equ�pment 4 Other Base Ma�ntenance and Support Equ�pment 5 Spares and Repa�r Parts

Defense (97 -)

Defense-w�de - 0300 1 Major Equ�pment 2 Spec�al Operat�ons Command 3 Chem�cal/B�olog�cal DefenseNat�onal Guard - 0350 1 Reserve Equ�pment and Reserve 2 Nat�onal Guard Equ�pment Equ�pment Defense Product�on - 0360 1 Defense Product�on Act�v�ty Purchases Act�v�ty PurchaseChem�cal Agents - 0390 1 Chem�cal Agents and Mun�t�ons Destruct�on—O&M and Mun�t�ons 2 Chem�cal Agents and Mun�t�ons Destruct�on—RDT&E Destruct�on 3 Chem�cal Agents and Mun�t�ons Destruct�on— ProcurementRap�d Acqu�s�t�on Fund -2095 1 Rap�d Acqu�s�t�on Fund

Appropriation BudgetActivity


24

RDT&E APPROPRIATIONSRelationship between MFP 6 R&D Categories and

RDT&E Appropriations budget Activities

RDT&E APPROPRIATIONS(Account Numbers)

MFP 6 RDT&E R&D budget RDT&E Category Activity budget Activity Title

6.1 BA 1 Bas�c Research 6.2 BA 2 Appl�ed Research6.3 BA 3 Advanced Technology Development6.4 BA 4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes6.5 BA 5 System Development and Demonstrat�on6.6 BA 6 RDT&E Management Support --- BA 7 Operat�onal System Development

*NOTE: Although s�m�lar, t�tles of the Major Force Program (MFP) s�x categor�es (wh�ch are not shown above) are not exactly the same as t�tles of the RDT&E Appropr�at�on Budget Act�v�t�es. In add�t�on, the “Operat�onal System Development” Budget Act�v�ty for RDT&E BA 7 �s not cons�dered MFP 6. Wh�le correctly funded w�th RDT&E dollars, these efforts do not fall under a MFP 6 Category; rather, for MFP purposes, the efforts are con-s�dered part of the Major Force Program that the fielded operat�onal system falls w�th�n.

Account Appropriation Number

RDT&E, Army 21 - 2040RDT&E, Navy 17 - 1319RDT&E, A�r Force 57 - 3600RDT&E, Defense-w�de 97 - 0400Development T&E, Defense 97 - 0450Operat�onal T&E, Defense 97 - 0460

Legend:BA—Budget ActivityMPF—Major Force ProgramR&D—Research and Development

RDT&E—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

T&E—Test and Evaluation


25

SAMPLE NAvy APPROPRIATIONS AND bUDGET ACTIvITIES

*Below Threshold Reprogramm�ng (BTR) amount l�m�ts are cumulat�ve over ent�re per�od of t�me the spec�fic fiscal year appropr�at�on �s ava�lable for obl�gat�on purposes (�.e., 1, 2, 3, or 5 years).**Reference Source: USD(C) Memo: Subject: FY 2006 Below Threshold Reprogramm�ng Author�ty Pol�cy, 10 Feb 2006

PROcuREMENT (Proc.)

SCN-1 Not Used $20M** Lesser of 5 FullSCN-2 Ship Conversion—Other Warships $20M orSCN-3 Ship Conversion—Amphibious Ships 20% ofSCN-4 Not Used amountSCN-5 Ship Conversion—Auxiliaries, Craft, and appropriated Prior-Year Program Costs

WPN-1 Weapons Proc—Ballistic Missiles 3 WPN-2 Weapons Proc.—Other MissilesWPN-3 Weapons Proc.—Torpedos and EquipmentWPN-4 Weapons Proc.—Other WeaponsWPN-5 Not UsedWPN-6 Weapons Proc.—Spares and Repair Parts

OPN-1 Other Proc.—Ship Support Equipment (SE)OPN-2 Other Proc.—Comm./Electronics Equip.OPN-3 Other Proc.—Aviation SEOPN-4 Other Proc.—Ordnance SEOPN-5 Other Proc.—Civil Engineering SEOPN-6 Other Proc.—Supply SEOPN-7 Other Proc.—Pers. and Command SEOPN-8 Other Proc.—Spares and Repair Parts

APN-1 Aircraft Proc.—Combat AircraftAPN-2 Aircraft Proc.—Airlift AircraftAPN-3 Aircraft Proc.—Trainer AircraftAPN-4 Aircraft Proc.—Other AircraftAPN-5 Aircraft Proc.—Modifications of AircraftAPN-6 Aircraft Proc.— Aircraft Spares and Repair PartsAPN-7 Aircraft Proc.— Aircraft SE and Facilities

6.1 BA 1 Basic Research $10M** Lesser of 2 Incremental6.2 BA 2 Applied Research $10M or 6.3 BA 3 Advanced Tech. Development 20% of6.4 BA 4 Adv. Comp. Dev. and Prototypes amount6.5 BA 5 System Devel. and Demo. appropriated6.6 BA 6 RDT&E Management Support (T&E Ranges) (Civilian Salaries) BA 7 Operational Systems Devel. (Post-Production)

Procurement Below Threshold Years Available Budget Budget Activity reprogramming rules for Obligation funding Activity Description Max In Max Out Purposes Policy (At Line Item Level)

MfP 6 Below Threshold Years Available r&D rDT&E Budget Activity (BA) reprogramming rules for Obligation funding Category Number and Title Max In* Max Out* Purposes Policy (At Prog. Element Level)

Below Threshold Years Available reprogramming rules for Obligation fundingOther Appropriations / Titles Max In Max Out Purposes Policy

O&M, N Operations and Maintenance $15M No Congressional 1 Annual Restriction MILPER, N Military Personnel $10M No Congressional 1 Annual Restriction MILCON, N Military Construction Lesser of No Congressional 5 Full +$2.0M or 25% Restriction Appropriated


26

bELOW ThREShOLD REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS

APPN

rDT&E

PrOC

O&M

MILPErS

MILCON

MAX OUT

Lesser of –$10M 20%

Lesser of –$20M –20%

None, Unless Otherwise Specified

No Specific Congressional

Restriction

No Specific Congressional

Restriction

OBLIGATION AVAILABLE

Line Item

3 Years (Shipbuilding and

Conversion: 5 Years)

1 Year

1 Year

5 Years

Amounts are Cumulative Over Entire Period of Obligation Availability

APPROPRIATION LIFE

Current Period: Available for new obligations, obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays

O&M

RDT&E

PROCUREMENT

ShIPS

MILCON

MILPERS

yEARS

Expired Period: Available for obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays

Cancelled: Unavailable for obligations, obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays

* RDT&E changed to $10M and Procurement changed to $20M for FY 03, FY 04, FY 05 per OSD Comptroller.

MAX OUT

Lesser of

Line Item

Budget Activity (BA) Some Ba 1 Sub-activity

Limitations On Decreases (Operating Forces)

Budget Activity

Project

MAX INTO

+$10M*

+$10M*

+$15M

+$10M

Lesser of +$2M +25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


27

IF . . .

THEN . . .

AND . . . Fund Purchase of the Mod K�ts and Installat�on of those Mod K�ts on the F�elded System w�th . . .

Current Period: Available for new obligations, obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays

LIFE CyCLE COST COMPOSITIONLife Cycle Cost

PRODUCT IMPROvEMENTSFunding Decision Tree

Does ProposedMod�ficat�on (Mod)Increase System

Performance?Is System

Currently InProduct�on?

NO

O&M $Procurement $

NO

YES YES

Fund Development and Test�ng w�th . . . (To Include the Mod K�ts used for Test�ng)

Is DT or IOT&E Requ�red?

Procurement $

YES

RDT&E $

NO

RDT&EDevelopment Costs ofPME and Support ItemsSystems EngineeringProgram ManagementTest and Evaluation

PROCUREMENTPr�meEqu�pment

Flyaway Cost

Development Cost

Procurement Cost

PROCUREMENTIn�t�al Spares

MILCONFacilities

Operat�ons andSupport• O&M , MILPERS

D�sposal• O&M (or others as appropr�ate

PROCUREMENTSupport Items

Weapon System Cost

Program Acquisition Cost


28

Estimate Methods comments

Analogy Compar�son to one s�m�lar ex�st�ng system; based on judgments. L�ttle or no data ava�lable; relat�vely qu�ck, easy, flex�ble. Used �n early phases (e.g., Concept Refinement and Tech. Dev.).

Parametr�c Compar�son to many s�m�lar ex�st�ng systems; based on stat�st�cal analys�s. Determ�ne pr�mary cost dr�vers and establ�sh Cost Est�mat�ng Relat�onsh�ps (CERs). Used �n early to m�d-phases (e.g., Concept Refinement and Tech. Dev., and System Dev. and Dem.).

Eng�neer�ng or Summat�on of “all” �nd�v�dual �tems �n the system.“Bottoms-Up” Uses Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for est�mat�ng purposes. Used �n m�d-phases (e.g., System Dev. and Dem.).

Extrapolat�on Compar�son to h�stor�cal cost of same system. Based on extrapolat�on from actuals. Uses Learn�ng Curve Theory. Used �n late phases (e.g., product�on and replen�shment spares).

COST ESTIMATING

Guidelines1. Make sure cost data are relevant and homogeneous. Caut�on: Watch out for

h�stor�cal data �n t�mes of change. Pr�or actuals may �nclude uncompensated overt�me or were pr�ced as a “buy-�n.”

2. Focus on cost dr�vers.3. Test sens�t�v�t�es and data relat�onsh�ps.

COST ESTIMATING RELATIONShIPS (CER)—PARAMETRIC

Regression Line

Cost ($)

PredictedCost withParameter(size)

Parameter(e.g., size, wt., etc.)

= Similar Systems


29

COST ESTIMATING REqUIREMENTS

POE

CARD

CCA

ICE

ACAT IC and ID

Program initiation and all subsequent milestones, including FRP DR

Required same as ICE or CCA • Draft 180 days prior to OIPT/milestone • Draft 180 days prior to OIPT/milestone

Usually serves as ICE for ACAT IC programs • Prepared by component cost agency

(AFCAA, DASA-CE, NCCA)• Program initiation and all subsequent

milestones including FRP DR• Prepared at MDA discretion for other

programs

Required by law for all MDAP programs *• Prepared by OSD CAIG for

ACAT ID and ACAT IC at discretion of USD(AT&L)

• Program initiation and all subsequent milestones including FRP DR

ACAT IAM and IAC

Program initiation and all subsequent milestones• Includes Economic Analysis

Required same as CCA• Draft 180 days prior to OIPT/milestone • Final 45 days prior to OIPT/milestone

Program initiation and whenever economic analysis is required

*ICE statutory requirement (Title 10, US Code, Sec 2434), Source: DoDI 5000.2

AFCAA—Air Force Cost Analysis AgencyCAIG—Cost Analysis Improvement GroupCARD—Cost Analysis Requirements

DescriptionCCA—Component Cost AnalysisDASA-CE—Dep Asst Sec of Army (Cost

and Economics)FRP DR—Full Rate Production Decision

Review

ICE—Independent Cost EstimateMDA—Milestone Decision AuthorityMDAP—Major Defense Acquisition ProgramNCCA—Naval Center for Cost AnalysisOIPT—Overarching Integrated Product TeamPOE—Program Office EstimateUSD(AT&L)—Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)

ACAT II and ACAT III: POE (and CCA and MDA discretion) at program initiation and all subsequent milestones.

Legend:


30

PR

OG

RA

M C

OS

T A

ND

SC

hE

DU

LE

bR

EA

Ch

PA

RA

ME

TE

RS

Sch

edu

le

Mile

sto

nes

Co

st

Rep

ort

s R

equ

ired

if

bre

ach

Occ

urs

SA

R(T

itle 1

0, U

S C

ode,

Sec

243

2) 6

mon

th s

l�p fr

om

prev

�ous

SA

R

15/3

0% P

AU

C G

row

th(C

urre

nt/O

r�g�n

al)

15/3

0% A

PU

C G

row

th(C

urre

nt/O

r�g�n

al)

Qua

rter

ly S

AR

Un

it C

ost

Rep

ort

(UC

R)

(Title

10,

US

Cod

e, S

ec 2

433)

(Nun

n-M

cCur

dy)

N/A

15/3

0% P

AU

C G

row

th(C

urre

nt/O

r�g�n

al)

15/3

0% A

PU

C G

row

th(C

urre

nt/O

r�g�n

al)

Qua

rter

ly/E

xcep

t�on

DA

ES

S

erv�

ce n

ot�fi

es C

ongr

ess

(>15

/30%

) S

ecD

ef C

ert�fi

cat�o

n (>

25/5

0%)

AP

b(T

itle 1

0, U

S C

ode,

Sec

243

5)

Sl�p

bey

ond

thre

shol

d da

te*

Def

ault

thre

shol

d =

obje

ct�v

e pl

us 6

m

onth

s; M

DA

d�s

cret

�on

15%

/30%

PA

UC

Gro

wth

15

%/3

0% A

PU

C G

row

th(C

urre

nt/O

r�g�n

al)

* R

DT

&E

Gro

wth

* P

rocu

rem

ent G

row

th*

M�lC

on o

r O

&M

Gro

wth

* 10

% d

efau

lt; M

DA

d�s

cret

�on

Pro

gram

Dev

�at�o

n R

epor

t

Ap

plic

able

to M

ajo

r D

efen

se A

cqu

isiti

on

Pro

gra

ms

(MD

AP

s)

AC

AT

II a

nd

III:

15%

/30%

PA

UC

/AP

UC

AP

b b

reac

h p

aram

eter

s ar

e N

/A; a

ctu

al b

reac

h p

aram

eter

s at

MD

A d

iscr

etio

n

Lege

nd :

APU

C—

Aver

age

Proc

urem

ent U

nit C

ost

APB—

Acqu

isitio

n Pr

ogra

m B

asel

ine

PAU

C—

Prog

ram

Acq

uisit

ion

Uni

t Cos

t SA

R—

Sele

cted

Acq

uisit

ion

Rep

ort

DAE

S—D

efen

se A

cqui

sitio

n Ex

ecut

ive S

umm

ary

Criti

cal C

ost G

row

th (A

PB/S

Ar/U

Cr)

PAU

C o

r APU

C in

crea

ses

of 2

5% o

f cur

rent

bas

elin

e or

50%

of o

rigin

al b

asel

ine

requ

ires

Sec

Def c

ertifi

catio

n to

Con

gres

s:

-- E

ssen

tial t

o na

tiona

l def

ense

-- N

o al

tern

ative

s -

- Cos

t are

und

er c

ontro

l -

- Man

agem

ent i

s in

pla

ce to

kee

p co

sts

unde

r con

trol

Sign

ifican

t Cos

t Gro

wth

(APB

/SAR

/UC

R)

PAU

C o

r APU

C in

crea

ses

of 1

5% o

f cur

rent

bas

elin

e or

30%

of o

rigin

al b

asel

ine

is “re

porta

ble”

to C

ongr

ess


31

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTCOST AND SChEDULE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

1. Define the work 2. Schedule the work3. Allocate budgets }

5. Prepare and mon�tor performance profiles:

4. Defin�ng, Plann�ng and Budget�ng:

ELEMENT/COST ACCOUNT—300

work Packages Planning Packages(6-month coverage) (remainder of effort)

$45

Task A Task B

Task C

Tasks D-X

$10

$ 3

$ 4

BCWP ACWP

BCWP

BCWS

BCWP (cum)

BAC

ACWP (cum)

BAC

PERFORMANCE INDICES

Cost Performance Index CPI =

Schedule Performance Index SPI =

Percent Complete =

Percent Spent =

=

ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION

EAC BAC(Lowest Est�mate) CPI(cum)

EAC = ACWP(cum) +(H�ghest Est�mate)

BAC - BCWP(cum)

EAC - ACWP(cum)v

BAC – BCWP(cum)

{CPI(cum) X

SPI(cum) }

TCPI(eac) =

TO COMPLETE PERFORMANCE INDICES

wBS

CBB

COST

ACwP NOw

BCwS

BCwP

COST VArIANCEPMB

BAC

EACTAB

Mr}

SCHEDULEVArIANCE

}}

TIME

BCWP - ACWP BCWP

BCWP - BCWS BCWS

VArIANCESCost Variance CV = BCWP - ACWP

Schedule Variance SV = BCWP - BCWS Cost Variance % CV% =

Schedule Variance % SV% =

Variance atCompletion VAC = BAC - EAC

Legend:ACWP—Actual Cost of Work PerformedAUW—Authorized Unpriced Work BAC—Budget at Completion BCWP—Budgeted Cost of Work Performed BCWS—Budgeted Cost of Work ScheduledCBB—Contract Budget Base (NCC+AUW) CPI—Cost Performance IndexCV—Cost VarianceEAC—Estimate at Completion (Government)

Cost Account

MR—Management Reserve NCC—Negotiated Contract CostPMB—Performance Measurement BaselineSPI— Schedule Performance IndexSV— Schedule VarianceTAB—Total Allocated BudgetTCPI—To Complete Performance IndicesVAC—Variance at CompletionWBS—Work Breakdown Structure


32

TyPES OF CONTRACTSCost Family—Appropr�ate when product not well defined; h�gh r�sk; contractor prov�des best efforts; Government pays all allowable costs. Fee var�es by type.

CPFF—Fee same regardless of actual cost outcome.

CPIF—Actual fee earned computed by apply�ng share rat�o to over/under run, subject to m�n/max fee l�m�ts.

Fixed Price Family—Product well defined, low r�sk; contractor must del�ver product.

FFP—Pr�ce fixed regardless of actual cost �ncurred.

FPI(F)—F�nal pr�ce computed by apply�ng share rat�o to over/underrun, subject to ce�l�ng pr�ce l�m�tat�on.

AF—E�ther stand-alone Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) or comb�ned w�th cost or fixed pr�ce types. AF un�laterally determ�ned by government based on subject�ve evaluat�on of contractor’s performance.

Fee Limits: CPFF—Fee l�m�ted to 15% for R&D; 10% for product�on and serv�ces. No statutory or FAR/DFARS regulatory l�m�tat�on on other contract types.

CONTRACTING—COMPONENTS OF CONTRACT PRICE

Contract Price = Cost + Profit/Fee

OtherDirect Cost

Subcontracts

TYPICAL CONTRACT TYPE BY PHASE

CR TD SDD/SI SDD/SD PROD CPFF, FFP CPFF,FFP CPFF, CPIF CPIF, CPAF FPI(F), FFP

FCCM

EngineeringLabor

ManufacturingLabor

RawMaterial

PurchasedParts Engineering

SupportManufacturing

SupportMaterialHandlingStandard

CommItems Interdivisional

Transfers

G&A

Direct Cost Indirect Cost

Direct Labor Direct Material Overhead

Legend:AF—Award Fee CPAF— Cost Plus Award FeeCPFF— Cost Plus Fixed FeeCPIF— Cost Plus Incentive FeeCR—Cost ReimbursementFAR/DFARS— Federal Acquisition Regulation/ Defense FAR SupplementFCCM— Facilities Capital Cost of MoniesFFP— Firm Fixed Price

FPI(F)—Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target)ODC—Other Direct CostG&A—General and Administrative (Expense)PROD—ProductionR&D—Research and Development SD—System DevelopmentSDD— System Development and DemonstrationSI— System IntegrationTD— Technology Development


33

CONTRACT TyPE FEATURES

Prom�seContractor R�sk

Cash FlowProgress Payments %

Adm�n�strat�onFee L�m�t %

FIXED PRICEDel�veryH�ghDel�very75/90/95LowNone

COST REIMbURSEMENTBest EffortsLowAs IncurredN/AH�gh15/10/6 on CPFF

PrICE = COST + fIXED fEE

Cost Plus fixed fee (CPff)

FEE

COST TArGET COST

MAX

TArGET

MIN

Cost Plus Incentive fee (CPIf)

Share Ratio

FEE

fIXEDfEE

(SHARE 100/0)

COST ESTIMATED COST

• Risk Highest to the Government• Obtains Fee Regardless of Cost

(Target) PrICE = (Target) COST + (Target) fEE

• All Reasonable Cost Paid• Shared Risk Between Min/Max Fee


34

CONTRACT TyPE FEATURES(Cont�nued)

fixed Price Incentive (firm Target) (fPI(f))

firm fixed Price (ffP)

PrICE = COST + PrOfIT

COST

0/100 SHARE

PROFIT

COST TArGET COST

PTA

Share Ratio

CEILING PRICE

PROFIT

TArGET PrOfIT

Point of Total Assumption = CEILING PRICE – TARGET PRICE + Target Cost (PTA) GOVERNMENT SHARE

(Target) PrICE = (Target) COST + (Target) PrOfIT


35

PRE-SOLICITATION PROCESS

POST-SOLICITATION PROCESS

LEGEND:FBO/CBD – FedB�zOps/Commerce

Bus�ness Da�ly

MarketResearch

Acqu�s�t�onStrategyRequ�rement

Acqu�s�t�onPlan

Post Draft RFPon Electron�cBullet�n Board

FBO/CBD Not�ceAdv�sory Mult�-Step

F�nal�zeRFP

CBD Not�ce ofRFP

Release

RFP Releaseto Industry

SourceSelect�on Plan/

Strategy

RFP ReleaseBr�efing to

SSA

SSADec�s�on

Rece�pt of Oraland Wr�ttenProposals

In�t�al Eval Clar�ficat�onsL�m�ted Commun�cat�ons

Compet�t�veRange

Determ�nat�on

Face-to-FaceD�scuss�ons/Negot�at�ons

Rece�ve and AnalyzeF�eld Surveys (�f requested)

Prepare for D�scuss�onsw�th

Rema�n�ng Offerors

Debr�efUnsuccessful

Offerors

Contract Award(D�str�but�on)

Br�efSSAC

Request F�nalProposalRev�s�on

Rece�ve andAnalyze

F�nal Rev�s�on

Br�efSSA

RFP – Request for ProposalSSA – Source Selection AuthoritySSAC – Source Selection Advisory Council


36

• GSA Multiple Award Schedules (MAS)

– General Serv�ces Adm�n�strat�on contracts for both products and serv�ces–ava�lable to all agenc�es.

• Government–Wide Agency Contracts (GWACs)

– S�m�lar to MAS but more restr�cted �n products and serv�ces ava�lable.

• Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite quantity Contracts

– Task orders (serv�ces) and del�very orders (products) �ssued under omn�bus umbrella contract.

• Other Transactions (OT)

– Defined: Veh�cles used for bas�c, appl�ed and advanced research projects and prototype development. OTs are not contracts, grants, or cooperat�ve agreements.

– Objective: Attract commerc�al compan�es and consort�a that h�stor�cally have not done bus�ness w�th the Department of Defense because of statutory and/or regulatory requ�rements. OTs are not subject to the Federal Acqu�s�t�on Regulat�on. Designed to increase DoD access to dual-use technologies.

– Research Projects:◆ Where pract�cal, government cost share should not exceed cost

share of other part�es.◆ Use OT when standard contract, grant, or cooperat�ve

agreement �s not appropr�ate.

– Prototype Projects: ◆ Must be d�rectly relevant to weapons or weapon systems

proposed to be acqu�red or developed by DoD.

– constraints: ◆ At least one nontrad�t�onal contractor part�c�pat�ng. ◆ If no nontrad�t�onal contractor part�c�pates, 1/3 of cost pa�d by

part�es other than federal government or sen�or procurement execut�ve just�fies transact�on.

– OT Guide for Prototype Projects, January 2001.

OThER WAyS TO bUy


37

CONTRACTOR PROFITAbILITy RATIOS

The basic concept of profitability ratios is to measure net income against revenue or against the investment required to produce it. There are three principal profitability ratios with which you should be familiar. They are:

1. return on Sales, which shows what percentage of dollars are left after the company has paid for all costs, interest, and taxes. It is expressed as:

Return on Sales = Net Income Sales

2. return on Total Assets, which looks at the efficiency with which management has used its resources, the company’s assets, to generate income. It is computed as:

ROA = Net Income Total Assets

As noted, return on Assets addresses how well management utilizes the assets of the firm in generating income. The ROA formula reflects the combined result of Return on Sales and the total asset turnover ratio (total sales/total assets), broken down as follows:

ROA = Net Income X Total Sales Total Sales Total Assets

3. return on Stockholders’ Equity measures the rate of return on the owners’ investment—their equity in the company. This is also known as return on Equity:

ROE = Net Income Stockholders’ Equity

ROE can also be broken into two components: return on assets and financial leverage (a ratio reflecting the relationship of creditor to owner financing—expressed as total assets/ stockholders equity). This is shown by:

ROE = Net Income X Total Assets Total Assets Stockholders’ Equity

These profitability ratios give three different viewpoints concerning the “bottom line” on the income statement—how much net profit is being made on each sale, how much is being made for the assets that are employed, and how much is being made for the company owners. Contractor profitability ratios for the aerospace/defense industry for the period of 1980 to date are shown on page 38.

From an owner’s perspective, another profitability ratio you may be aware of is Earnings Per Share:

EPS =

Legend: EPS—Earnings Per Share ROA—Return on Assets ROE—Return on Equity

Net IncomeNumber of Shares of Common Stock Outstanding


38

AEROSPACE/DEFENSE INDUSTRy CONTRACTOR PROFITAbILITy RATIOS

Aerospace/Defense IndustryContractor Profitability Ratios

return Asset return financial return On Sales Turnover On Assets Leverage On Equity (NI/S) (S/TA) (NI/TA) (TA/SE) (NI/SE)

1980 4.3 1.21 5.2 3.08 16.01981 4.4 1.18 5.2 3.06 16.01982 3.3 1.12 3.7 3.24 12.01983 3.5 1.17 4.1 2.98 12.11984 4.1 1.15 4.7 3.00 14.11985 3.1 1.13 3.6 3.17 11.11986 2.8 1.07 3.1 3.13 9.41987 4.1 1.07 4.4 3.32 14.61988 4.3 1.02 4.4 3.39 14.91989 3.3 1.00 3.3 3.24 10.71990 3.4 1.00 3.4 3.38 11.51991 1.8 1.06 1.9 3.21 6.11992 -1.4 0.86 -1.2 4.33 -5.21993 3.6 0.97 3.5 3.80 13.21994 4.7 0.92 4.3 3.44 14.81995 3.8 0.92 3.5 3.17 11.11996 5.6 0.91 5.1 3.35 17.11997 5.2 0.92 4.8 3.60 17.31998 5.0 0.96 4.8 3.73 18.01999 6.5 0.95 6.2 3.52 21.82000 4.7 0.91 4.3 3.30 14.22001 3.9 0.92 3.6 3.22 11.62002 4.1 0.90 3.7 3.16 11.72003 3.1 0.84 2.6 3.81 9.9

AVERAGE 3.8 1.0 3.8 3.4 12.7Source: Aerospace Industries Association

Legend:NI/A—Net Income/SalesNI/SE—Net Income/Stockholders’ Equity

NI/TA—Net Income/Total AssetsS/TA—Sales/Total AssetsTA/SE—Total Assets/Stockholders’ Equity


39

X X

LO

CK

hE

ED

MA

RT

IN C

OR

P—

DU

PO

NT

FO

RM

UL

A A

NA

LyS

IS (

AN

EX

AM

PL

E)

==

4.00

%

3.00

%

2.00

%

1.00

%

0.00

%

-1.0

0%

-2.0

0%

-3.0

0%

-4.0

0%

-5.0

0%

Retu

rn o

n Sa

les

(%)

(Net

Inco

me/

Sale

s)

1999

2002

2003

2000

2001

5.00

%4.

00%

3.00

%2.

00%

1.00

%0.

00%

-1.0

0%-2

.00%

-3.0

0%-4

.00%

-5.0

0%

Retu

rn o

n As

sets

(%)

(Net

Inco

me/

Tota

l Ass

ets)

1999

2002

2003

2000

2001

5.00

04.

500

4.00

03.

500

3.00

02.

500

2.00

01.

500

1.00

00.

500

0.00

0

Fina

ncia

l Lev

erag

e(T

otal

Ass

ets/

Shar

ehol

der E

quity

)

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

5.00

%4.

00%

3.00

%2.

00%

1.00

%0.

00%

-1.0

0%-2

.00%

-3.0

0%-4

.00%

-5.0

0%

Retu

rn o

n As

sets

(%)

(Net

Inco

me/

Tota

l Ass

ets)

1999

2002

2003

2000

2001

Fisc

alYe

arTo

tal A

sset

Turn

over

Ret

urn

on A

sset

s %

Fi

nanc

ial

Leve

rage

Ret

urn

on E

quity

%R

etur

n on

Sale

s %

=

XX

4.75

7=

X=

X4.

249

=X

=X

4.30

1=

XX

4.60

0=

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1.53

%-2

.11%

-4.3

6%1.

88%

3.31

%X

0.82

60.

807

0.86

60.

985

1.21

6

1.26

%-1

.71%

-3.7

7%1.

85%

4.02

%

1.26

%-1

.71%

-3.7

7%1.

85%

4.02

%X

3.87

4=

6.01

%7.

25%

-16.

23%

8.53

%15

.59%

Ret

urn

on A

sset

s %

X

=

== =

X

20.0

0%

15.0

0%

11.0

0%

10.0

0%

5.00

%

0.00

%

-5.0

0%

-10.

00%

-15.

00%

-20.

00%

Retu

rn o

n Eq

uity

(%)

(Net

Inco

me/

Shar

ehol

der E

quity

)

1999

2002

2003

2001

2000

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 0

Tota

l Ass

et T

urno

ver

(Sal

es/T

otal

Ass

ets)

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003


40

CASh CyCLE

— Delivery

CONTRACTOR FINANCING AND PAyMENTS

*Internal Contractor Financing— Retained Earnings

— Govt. specified — Offer or proposed — Interim — Advance

— Private• Trade Credit• Bank Credit

— Revolving Credit — Term Loan — Government

— Periodic— Partial

PAYMENTS fINANCING (External*)

NoncommercialCommercial NoncommercialCommercial

• For Noncommercial — Progress Payments

• Performance-based• Cost Incurred-based• % Complete

– Unusual Progress Payments – Assignment of Claims – Guaranteed Loans – Advance Payments

Cashreceived

Accountsreceivable

Sale(DD 250) Finished goods

inventory

Raw materialinventory

Contractaward

Cashdisbursed

Cashdisbursed

Wagespayable

Work in processinventory

Accountspayable


41

Indirect costs

• Costs that can’t be traced to a single contract because they are associated with multiple contracts

• Example: electricity for the company’s facilities

Direct costs

• Costs that can be traced to a single contract

• Examples: material and labor to assemble an aircraft

DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

Indirect costs are assigned to

contracts usingindirect rate(s).

(Traced directly)

(Traced directly)Direct

material

Direct labor

Contract

ASSIGNING INDIRECT COSTS

Calculation of Indirect Rates

Note: See DAU Indirect-Cost Management Guide at<www.dau.mil/pubs/gdbks/icmguide.asp>.

INDIRECT RATE = Indirect Cost PoolAllocation base


42

LIFE CyCLE OF INDIRECT COST RATES

bIDDING ONCONTRACTS

ADJUSTING PAyMENT AND

CLOSINGCONTRACTS

PAyINGCONTRACTS

FORWARD PRICING RATES

bILLING RATES

ACTUALRATES

D�rect mater�al $ 40,000Mater�al handl�ng 10% 4,000

D�rect eng�neer�ng labor 6,000Eng�neer�ng overhead 100% 6,000

D�rect manufactur�ng labor 12,000Manufactur�ng overhead 150% 18,000

Other d�rect costs 6,000Subtotal 92,000

General and adm�n�strat�ve 25% 23,000Total cost 115,000

Profit 15% 17,250Cost of money for fac�l�t�es cap�tal 1,500

Price $133,750

CONTRACTOR’S COST PROPOSALEXAMPLE


43

CONTRACTOR bUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS OUTPUTS

MANPOWER PLAN

Ratesfor

Est�mat�ng

SALES

ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN

CAPITAL INvESTMENT PLAN

PRODUCTION ANDENGINEERING PLAN

MASTER DELIvERy SChEDULE

IR&D/b&P PLAN

TOP MANAGEMENT GOALS, ObJECTIvES,

STRATEGIES

OvERhEAD FORECAST

bUSINESS bASE SALES FORECAST

$ $

TREND


44

SystemPerformance

TechnicalEffectiveness

SystemEffectiveness

SystemAvailability

ProcessEfficiency

Capabilities

functions

Priorities

reliability

Maintainability

Supportability

Producibility

Operations

Maintenance

Logistics

Life Cycle Cost / Total Ownership Cost (TOC)/Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)

AffordableOperational

Effectiveness

◆System Training◆System Documentation◆Supply Support (including Spares)◆Sustainment Planning

◆Test and Support Equipment◆facilities◆Packaging, Handling, and Transportation◆Manpower

SYSTEM/PrODUCT SUPPOrT PACKAGE:

SySTEM OPERATIONAL EFFECTIvENESS (SOE)

PRINCIPAL LIFE CyCLE LOGISTICS GOALS/ObJECTIvES

LIFE CyCLE LOGISTICS

• The plann�ng, development, �mplementat�on, and management of a comprehens�ve, affordable, and effect�ve systems-support strategy, w�th�n Total L�fe Cycle Systems Management. L�fe cycle log�st�cs encompasses the ent�re system’s l�fe cycle �nclud�ng acqu�s�t�on (des�gn, develop, test, produce, and deploy), susta�nment (operat�ons and support), and d�sposal.

• Influence product des�gn for affordable System Operat�onal Effect�veness.

• Des�gn and develop the support system ut�l�z�ng Performance- Based Log�st�cs.

• Acqu�re and concurrently deploy the supportable system, �nclud�ng support �nfrastructure.

• Ma�nta�n/�mprove read�ness, �mprove affordab�l�ty, and m�n�m�ze log�st�cs footpr�nt.


45

Maintenance Planning – establ�shes ma�ntenance concepts and requ�re-ments.

Manpower and Personnel – �dent�ficat�on of personnel sk�lls, grades, and quant�ty requ�red to support operat�on and ma�ntenance of system.

Supply Support – determ�ne requ�rements to acqu�re and manage spares and repa�r parts.

Support Equipment – �dent�fy all equ�pment requ�red to support operat�on and ma�ntenance of the system.

Technical Data – sc�ent�fic and techn�cal �nformat�on used to support sys-tems acqu�s�t�on.

Training and Training Support – determ�ne requ�rements to acqu�re tra�n�ng dev�ces and conduct tra�n�ng of operators and ma�ntenance personnel.

Computer Resources Support – �dent�ficat�on of fac�l�t�es, hardware, software, and support tools to operate and support embedded computer systems.

Facilities – �dent�fy real property requ�red to support system.Packaging, handling, Storage, and Transportation – �dent�fy des�gns and

methods to ensure the system �s preserved, packed, stored, handled, and transported properly.

Design Interface – relat�onsh�ps of log�st�cs-related des�gn parameters to read�ness and support resources requ�rements; �nfluence des�gn for sup-portab�l�ty.

SUPPORT ELEMENT DEFINITIONS

bEST PRACTICE: Support Elements

Ma�ntenance Plann�ng

Manpower andPersonnel

Supply Support

SupportEqu�pment Tra�n�ng and

Tra�n�ng Support

Techn�calData

DesignInterface

ComputerResources

Support

SySTEM

Fac�l�t�es

Packag�ng, Handl�ng,Storage, and

Transportat�on

Note: Under Performance-Based Log�st�cs (PBL), support elements are st�ll val�d even though thegovernment �s buy�ng results and solut�ons, not spec�fic resources or processes.


46

LIF

E C

yC

LE

LO

GIS

TIC

S L

INK

AG

E T

O D

EF

EN

SE

AC

qU

ISIT

ION

PR

OC

ES

S

Mod

ifica

tions

&Te

chno

logy

Inse

rtion

Acqu

isiti

onSt

rate

gy

Supp

ort

Stra

tegy

FRP

DECI

SIO

N RE

VIEW

DESI

GN

READ

INES

S RE

VIEW

User

Nee

ds &

Tech

nolo

gy O

ppor

tuni

ties

CIO

CFO

CSu

stai

nmen

tPr

e-Sy

stem

s Ac

quis

ition

Sust

ainm

ent

D

ispo

sal

Prod

uce

Prod

uct

Prod

uce

Supp

ort S

yste

m

Read

ines

s &

Tota

lO

wne

rshi

p Co

stO

bjec

tives

Perfo

rman

ce-

Base

d Lo

gist

ics

(PBL

)Eval

uate

Alte

rnat

ive

Logi

stic

sCo

ncep

ts

Supp

ort

Conc

epts

IOC

Syst

ems

Acqu

isiti

onB

A

INCR

EMEN

T 3

CONC

EPT

DECI

SIO

N

SE P

roce

ssSE

Pro

cess

Eval

uate

Prod

uct S

uppo

rtCa

pabi

litie

s

Deve

lop

Initi

alPr

oduc

tSu

ppor

t Stra

tegy

Prod

uct

Supp

ort P

lan

Dem

o Pr

oduc

tSu

ppor

tCa

pabi

lity

PBL

& Pr

oduc

tSu

ppor

tIm

plem

enta

tion

PBL

& Pr

oduc

tSu

ppor

tM

anag

emen

t

Ope

ratio

ns/

Sust

ainm

ent

Sing

le S

tep

orEv

olut

ion

to F

ull

Capa

bilit

y

Dem

il&

Disp

osal

Dem

onst

rate

Supp

orta

bilit

y&

Life

Cyc

leAf

ford

abili

ty

Dem

onst

rate

Supp

orta

bilit

y&

Life

Cyc

leAf

ford

abili

ty

Inpu

ts to

:• C

DD• T

EMP

• APB

• Con

tract

FACT

ORY

CLO

SED

INCR

EMEN

T 2

Desi

gn P

rodu

ctfo

r Sup

porta

bilit

y

Desi

gn D

evel

opSu

ppor

t Sys

tem

Post

-Dep

loym

ent

Supp

ort

Mai

ntai

n/Im

prov

eRe

adin

ess

& Im

prov

e Af

ford

abili

ty

GOAL 4

GOAL 1

OPE

RATI

ONS

& SU

PPO

RTPR

ODU

CTIO

N &

DEPL

OYM

ENT

SYST

EM D

EV &

DEM

ONS

TRAT

ION

CONC

EPT

REFI

NEM

ENT

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEVE

LOPM

ENT

SYST

EMIN

TEG

RATI

ON

SYST

EMDE

MO

NSTR

ATIO

N

LOW

-RAT

EIN

ITIA

LPR

ODU

CTIO

N

FULL

-RAT

EPR

ODU

CTIO

N&

DEPL

OYM

ENT

GOAL 2

Post

-Dep

loym

ent

Eval

uatio

ns

Acqu

ire &

Dep

loy

Supp

orta

ble

Syst

emGOAL 3


47

PERFORMANCE-bASED LOGISTICS (PbL)

• The purchase of support as an �ntegrated, affordable, performance package des�gned to opt�m�ze system read�ness and meet per-formance goals for a weapon system through long-term support arrangements w�th clear l�nes of author�ty and respons�b�l�ty.

• PBL �s DoD’s preferred approach for product support �mplementat�on.

PERFORMANCE-bASED LOGISTICS (PbL) TOOL KIT

PbL 12-Step Process Model<https://acc.dau.m�l/pbl>


48

Sufficient Sparesand Repair Parts for

System Life?

yes

yes

No

No

Monitor Usage Data

Multiple Sources?

EvaluateAlternatives

Monitorvendors

Sole SourceReprocurement

CompetitiveReprocurement

SubstituteParts

ComponentRedesign

Life of Typebuy

POST-PRODUCTION SUPPORT DECISION PROCESS

Log�st�cs Down T�me

(LDT)

Correct�ve Ma�ntenance T�me

(CMT)

Adm�n�strat�veDelay T�me

(ADT)

Prevent�ve Ma�ntenance T�me

(PMT)

• Locating tools• Setting up test equipment• Finding personnel (trained)• Reviewing manuals• Complying with supply procedures

• Parts availability “in the bin”• Needed items awaiting transportation

• Preparation time• Fault location time• Getting parts• Correcting fault• Test and checkout

• Servicing• Inspection

OPERATIONAL AvAILAbILITy

StandbyTime

OperatingTime

Uptime

DowntimeAO =

Uptime +


49

Materiel Availability (Key Performance Parameter (KPP))• A Key Data Element• Used In Maintenance and Logistics Planning• Average percentage of time entire population of systems is materially capable for

operational use during a specified period• Formula: Number of End Items Operational Total Population of End Items

Materiel Reliability (Key System Attributes (KSA)) • Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)• Measure of How Often System Fails/Requires Repair• Key Data Element In Forecasting Maintenance/Logistics Needs• Formula: Total Operating Hours Total Number of Failures

Ownership Cost (KSA)• O&S costs associated with materiel readiness• Focused on Sustainment of the System• Essential Metric For Sustainment Planning and Execution • Useful For Trend Analyses• Supports Design Improvements/Modifications• Uses CAIG O&S Cost Estimating Structure Selected Cost Elements

Mean Downtime• Measure of How Long a System Will Be Unavailable After a Failure• Used In Maintenance/Logistics Planning Process• Formula: Total Down Time for All Failures Total Number of Failures

LIFE CyCLE SUSTAINMENT METRICS(CJCS 3170, 1 May 2007)

LIFE CyCLE SUSTAINMENT OUTCOME ENAbLERS<https://acc.dau.mil/log>

• Performance Based Log�st�cs (PBL)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/pbl> • Corros�on Prevent�on—<https://acc.dau.m�l/corros�on> • Item Un�que Ident�ficat�on (Iu�d)/ser�al�zed Item Management (SIM)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/u�d> • Techn�cal Data/IETM

— Interact�ve Electron�c Techn�cal Manuals (IETM)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/�etm> — Data Management—<https://acc.dau.m�l/dm>

• Cond�t�on Based Ma�ntenance (CBM+)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/cbm>— Prognost�cs and D�agnost�cs—<https://acc.dau.m�l/phm>— Rel�ab�l�ty Centered Ma�ntenance (RCM)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/rcm>

• Cont�nuous Process Improvement (CPI)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/cp�-lean> • T�tle 10 Requ�rements/ 50/50, Partner�ng

— 50/50—<https://acc.dau.m�l/depot>— Partner�ng—<https://acc.dau.m�l/ppp>

• Depot Ma�ntenance Plan—<https://acc.dau.m�l/depot>• D�m�n�sh�ng Manufactur�ng Sources and Mater�al Shortages (DMSMS)/Obsolescence

Plann�ng— D�m�n�sh�ng Manufactur�ng Sources and Mater�al Shortages (DMSMS)—

<https://acc.dau.m�l/dmsms>— Ag�ng Systems—<https://acc.dau.m�l/ag�ngsystems>— Obsolescence Management—<https://acc.dau.m�l/obsolescence>— Cont�nuous Modern�zat�on—<https://acc.dau.m�l/modern�zat�on>— Technology Insert�on—<https://acc.dau.m�l/tech�nsert�on>— Lead Free Electron�cs/Solder <https://acc.dau.m�l/leadfree>

• Tra�n�ng—<https://acc.dau.m�l/tra�n�ng>• Integrated Supply Cha�n Management (SCM)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/scm>• Rad�o Frequency Ident�ficat�on (RFID)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/rfid> • Pred�ct�ve Model�ng—<https://acc.dau.m�l/m&s>• Long-term Performance Based Agreements (PBA)—<https://acc.dau.m�l/pbar>

MeanDownTime

Mat

erie

l Rel

iabi

lity

Materiel AvailabilityO

wnership C

ost

https://acc.dau.mil/log

https://acc.dau.mil/pbl

https://acc.dau.mil/corrosion

https://acc.dau.mil/uid

https://acc.dau.mil/ietm

https://acc.dau.mil/dm

https://acc.dau.mil/cbm

https://acc.dau.mil/phm

https://acc.dau.mil/rcm

https://acc.dau.mil/cpi-lean

https://acc.dau.mil/depot

https://acc.dau.mil/ppp

https://acc.dau.mil/depot

https://acc.dau.mil/dmsms

https://acc.dau.mil/agingsystems

https://acc.dau.mil/obsolescence

https://acc.dau.mil/modernization

https://acc.dau.mil/techinsertion

https://acc.dau.mil/leadfree

https://acc.dau.mil/training

https://acc.dau.mil/scm

https://acc.dau.mil/rfid

https://acc.dau.mil/m&s

https://acc.dau.mil/pbar


50

LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT COMMUNITy OF PRACTICE (LOG COP)

Transforming the Way We Work

Where yOU can ….

Find helpful Tools and Templates• Latest PBL Resources• Supportab�l�ty Best Pract�ces• Contract�ng Lessons Learned

Get Ahead In yOUR Career• Log�st�cs Tra�n�ng and Educat�on• Latest OSD Pol�cy and D�rect�on• Log�st�cs Conferences/Events• L�nk to Top DoD Web s�tes

Connect With Professionals• Share Exper�ences and Ideas• Start and Jo�n D�scuss�ons• Locate DoD and Industry Experts

<http://acc.dau.mil/log>

DEFENSE ACqUISITION GUIDEbOOK LIFE CyCLE LOGISTICS

<https://akss.dau.mil/dag>

http://acc.dau.mil/log

https://akss.dau.mil/dag


51

“Pure” Product Structure

PROGRAM OFFICE ORGANIzATION STRUCTURES (Examples)

“Traditional” or functional Structure

Note: Functional divisions shown are notional.


PM

Staff

Eng�neer�ng Product�onLog�st�csBus�ness/F�nance

Staff

Staff

Engr

Funct�onalD�v�s�ons

Log BusEngr


Log BusEngr


Log Bus

StaffStaff

Product/Project

ManagerSystem A

Product/Project

ManagerSystem B

Product/Project

ManagerSystem C

PM

LEGEND: Engr—Engineering Log—Logistics Bus—Business


52

PROGRAM OFFICE ORGANIzATION STRUCTURES (Cont�nued)

PEO

Staff

PM Program A

SYSCOM Head

Functional Directors

Engineering ProductionLogistics Bus/Fin

PM Program B

PM Program C


Staff

Staff

DPM

Program ManagerAPMs Log Eng Test Prod Bus/Fin Contracts

Primary Vehicle

LogisticsSystems Engineering

Test & Evaluation

Frame Engine/Drive Train

Suspension & Steering

Fire Control

Level 1IPT

Level 2IPTs

Level 3IPTs

Note 1

Note 1: Functional titles shown are notional.

Note 2

Note 2: IPTs often align with WBS elements.

Matrix Structure

Integrated Product Teams


53

ThE ROLE OF MANUFACTURING IN ThE ACqUISITION PROCESS

SUSTAINMENTfULLrATE

LrIPCr TD DEMON-

STrATION INTEGrA-

TION

CbA

• Execute the Manufacturing Plan– Reflect Design Intent– Repeatable Processes• Continuous Process Improvement

PRODucTION• Influence the Design

Process• Prepare for Production

RDT&E

• Producible Design• Factory Floor

Characterized

MILESTONE c EXIT REquIREMENTS

CUrrENT DoD 5000 PrOCESS

• Unstable requirements/engineering changes• Unstable production rates and quantities• Insufficient process proofing• Insufficient materials characterization• Changes in proven materials, processes, subcontractors,

vendors, components• Producibility• Configuration management• Subcontractor management• Special tooling• Special test equipment

COMMON PRODUCTION RISKS ThAT GREATLy IMPACT COST, SChEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE

• Uniform, Defect-Free Product

• Consistent Performance• Lower Cost

NET RESuLT:


54

PRODUCIbILITy

DEfINITION:

The measure of relat�ve ease of manufactur�ng a product. The product should be eas�ly and econom�cally fabr�cated, assembled, �nspected, and tested w�th h�gh qual�ty on the first attempt that meets perfor-mance thresholds.

PRODucIBILITy ISSuES:

• Des�gn eng�neer�ng, NOT manufactur�ng, �s the techn�cal group respons�b�l�ty for produc�b�l�ty. Program offices and des�gn eng�neers often d�sl�ke produc�b�l�ty because �t usually requ�res performance funct�onal�ty sacr�fices (espec�ally �f cost �s a set value, �.e., CAIV).

• Many des�gn eng�neers do not have proper tra�n�ng or exper�ence �n des�gn�ng for produc�b�l�ty. Manufactur�ng fac�l�t�es must be expl�c�tly recogn�zed as a major des�gn constra�nt. Th�s �ncludes process capab�l�t�es and rate capab�l�t�es at each fac�l�ty.

The PM is responsible for Producibility

PRODUCIbILITyDefense Acquisition Guidebook,

4.4.6.1 Producibility

• Produc�b�l�ty: degree to wh�ch system des�gn fac�l�tates t�mely, afford-able, opt�mum-qual�ty manufacture, assembly, and del�very of system

• Produc�ble system des�gn should be a development pr�or�ty• Des�gn eng�neer�ng efforts concurrently develop:

— Produc�ble and testable des�gn— Capable manufactur�ng processes— Necessary process controls to:

◆ Meet requ�rements◆ M�n�m�ze manufactur�ng costs

• PM should use ex�st�ng manufactur�ng processes whenever poss�ble• When des�gn requ�res new manufactur�ng capab�l�t�es, PM needs to

cons�der process flex�b�l�ty (e.g., rate and configurat�on �nsens�t�v�ty)• Full-rate product�on necess�tates:

— Stable systems des�gn— Proven manufactur�ng processes— Ava�lable product�on fac�l�t�es and equ�pment


55

qUALITy MANAGEMENT SySTEMSDefense Acquisition Guidebook, 4.4.7 quality

• The PM should allow contractors to define and use the�r preferred qual�ty management system that meets requ�red program support capab�l�t�es.

• The PM w�ll not requ�re Internat�onal Standards Organ�zat�on (ISO) reg�strat�on of a suppl�er’s qual�ty system s�nce there have been �nstances where ISO 9001-reg�stered suppl�er products were defic�ent or l�fe-threaten�ng.

• Contractor’s qual�ty management system should be capable of the follow�ng key act�v�t�es: – Mon�tor, measure, analyze, control, and �mprove processes; – Reduce product var�at�on; – Measure/ver�fy product conform�ty; – Establ�sh mechan�sms for field product performance feedback; and – Implement an effect�ve root-cause analys�s and correct�ve act�on

system.

Notes: ISO 9000 Series International Quality Standard is considered a Basic Quality system, but the focus is still on “Document what you do. Do what you document.”

Advanced Quality Systems (AQS), such as the new SAE AS9100B Aerospace industries’ quality standard, focus on achieving customer satisfaction via use of key characteristics identification and control, variation reduction of key characteristics, flow-down of similar process control requirements to suppliers, and many other advanced process-oriented control and improvement techniques.

KEy ChARACTERISTICS AND vARIATION REDUCTION

GOAL—M�n�m�ze and control var�at�on on both key product character-�st�cs and correspond�ng key manufactur�ng process character�st�cs: • Key Character�st�cs: The features of a mater�al, process, or

part whose var�at�on has a s�gn�ficant �nfluence on product fit, performance, serv�ce l�fe, or manufacturab�l�ty—per SAE AS9100B.

• Major Sources of Var�at�on: Insuffic�ent des�gn marg�ns, process (manpower, mach�nery, methods, etc.), measurement systems, suppl�er’s products.

Why: D�rect correlat�on between dev�at�on from nom�nal value (�.e., var�at�on) on key character�st�cs and product qual�ty and funct�onal�ty.

TOOLS: Qual�ty Funct�on Deployment (QFD), Des�gn of Exper�ments (DOE), Stat�st�cal Process Control. (See control chart on next page.)


56

KEy ChARACTERISTICS AND vARIATION REDUCTION

(Continued)

The (X bar) and R Control Charts are used to monitor manufacturing processes. Upper or Lower Control Limits (UCL or LCL) are NOT design specification parameters. Instead, they are predicted boundaries for stable processes, calculated using (X double bar) (average of sampled process Means), (R Bar) (the average of the sample Ranges, which are the spreads between extreme values per sample), plus the selected data sample size and process-keyed statistical formulas. Values outside the UCL and/or LCL indicate possible process instability, likely due to uncommon “special” causes of variation. Caution: A process in control is desirable because it is predictable, yet it could fail to meet design requirements due to inherent “common” variation and/or because the process average isn’t centered on the design nominal value.

Reference: The Memory JoggerTM II; ©1994 by GOAL/QPC

UCL

R (Control Chart)*

UCL

LCL

.40

.30

.20

.10

.90

.85

.80

.75

.70

.65

.60

.55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

X (Control Chart)

R =.178

–

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

x–

*Note: No lower control limit for R chart for sample size below 7.

–


57

PRODUCTION READINESS REvIEW (PRR)WHy WE DO THEM”

• Risk Management Tool: Identify program risks and issues and opportunities early and often (small, incremental, proactive—vice big, single, reactive)

• Assess capability of contractor (and subcontractor) to deliver on time, within cost, a product that meets performance and quality requirements

• Assess actual contractor performance (metrics)• Assess effectiveness of contractor’s corrective/preventative actions• Measure improvement of contractor’s performance

HOW TO DO THEM

• Write a charter that the program office and contractor both understand• Coordinate with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)—use their capability• Establish areas of assessment with metrics

– Producibility– Engineering Change Orders (ECO)/design stability– Manufacturing process control (key characteristics)– Cost, time of scrap, rework, and repair– Tooling status– Subcontractor management (same metrics as listed above)

• Ask questions, touch things, talk to shop floor workers– See what is actually happening on the factory floor rather than the conference

room, i.e., go see and talk to the people doing the work

WHEN TO DO THEM

• Early and often (see Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 4.3.3.9.3, Production Readiness Reviews)• Concurrently with other technical reviews, such as the System Functional Review (SFR),

Preliminary Design Review (PDR), and the Critical Design Review (CDR)• In Systems Integration and Systems Demonstration • “Final” PRR occurs at end of Systems Demonstration (before Milestone C)• PRRs should be held in LRIP and beyond IF major changes (to design, manufacturing

processes, rates/quantities, etc.) occur during LRIP

ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SOURCES

• DAU’s Production, Quality and Manufacturing Information Web site: – Go to <www.dau.mil>, select Knowledge Sharing, select Acquisition Community

Connection, then see Participate in a Community, and select Production, Quality and Manufacturing

– Contains references to subjects including DoD Manufacturing Requirements, and Best Business Practices, such as Lean Enterprise, e-Commerce, Six Sigma, Basic and Advanced Quality Systems, Supply Chain Management, etc.

• Best Manufacturing Practices Center of Excellence—<www.bmpcoe.org>• Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI)—<http://web.mit.edu/lean>

http://web.mit.edu/lean


58

Use Integrated DT/OT—S�ngle �ntegrated contractor/government DT and OT team;shared test events and test data; �ndependent data analys�s and report�ng.

ACAT I and II Programs—Requ�re an �ndependent, ded�cated IOT&E to proceed beyond Low Rate In�t�al Product�on (LRIP).

T&E Required Before Going Beyond Low Rate Initial Production• Production qualification T&E—Ver�fy Des�gn Art�cle meets Spec/PM respons�ble Per-

formed by Contractor and/or Government/DPRO ass�stance valuable. Read�ness for IOT&E.• Live Fire T&E (LFT&E)—Vulnerab�l�ty and Lethal�ty/Developmental Agency fund and

execute DOTE overs�ght, approval, and Congress�onal report�ng for ACAT I, II, and selected programs.

• Initial Operational T&E (IOT&E)—Operat�onal Effect�veness and Su�tab�l�ty/Inde-pendent Serv�ce OTA plan and manage. DOTE overs�ght, approval, and Congress�o-nal report�ng for ACAT I and selected systems.

Models and Simulations Used Throughout the Acquisition Process

TEST AND EvALUATION (T&E)—TyPES AND TASKSDevelopmental T&E (DT&E)/Operational T&E (OT&E) comparisons

IOT&E• Operat�onal effect�ve/su�table• Operat�onal Test Agency (OTA) respons�ble• “Typ�cal” user personnel• Many test art�cles/each test• “Combat” env�ronment/threats• “Product�on Rep” test art�cles• Contractor may not be allowed

DT&E• Techn�cal performance measurement• Developmental agency respons�ble (PM)• Techn�cal Personnel• Ltd. test art�cles/each test• Controlled env�ronment• All types of test art�cles• Contractor �nvolved

Test requirements• Test Interfaces• Eval. Strategy• Systems Engineering• Design for Test• S/W Human T&E• TES/TEMP• Subsystem T&E• Software Only T&E

System DT&E• Computer Software Configuration Item T&E• Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability• Supportability• Interoperability• Production Quality• Live Fire T&E• Certificate of Readiness for IOT&E

AGONIZE OVER THRESHOLDS!

To support T&E during: Requirements Definition T&E Planning Engineering Design Fabrication Integration Systems DT&E OT&E Training Operations

System OT&E• Effectiveness• Suitability

• Acceptance Test • Manufacturing Test

• Data Collection • Reporting

PRODUCTION (PAT&E, FOT&E)

T&E Tasks and Events

INTEGRATION AND TEST(H/W IN THE LOOP)

OT&E: EOA, OA, IOT&E/OPEVAL

DEPLOY AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

FABRICATION AND TEST (BENCH, LAB)

REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT

ENGINEERING DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT T&E: QUALIFICATION T&E,

ACCEPTANCE T&E, LFT&E


59

What is this nomograph? A two-d�mens�onal graph�cal representat�on of the cumulat�ve b�nom�al d�str�but�on.

Why use nomograph? It enables a relat�vely s�mple solut�on to a complex mathemat�cal calculat�on.

What does it do? It allows you to calculate the performance of an �tem w�th assoc�ated stat�st�cal confidence.

When do you use it?• When your requ�rement �ncludes a “Confidence Level” w�th a spec�fic

level of performance. For example: THIS m�ss�le must h�t THAT target 90 percent of the t�me w�th 80 percent stat�st�cal confidence?

• When the performance of an �tem under test can be character�zed by a b�nom�al d�str�but�on.

What are the characteristics of a binomial distribution?• Result of each event (fir�ng) �s an �ndependent from other events.• Probab�l�ty of success of each event �s constant.• Each event results �n a “success” or a “fa�lure.” (In other words, there

are no po�nts for be�ng close; each event must be scored as a h�t or a m�ss.)

What are some examples of binomially distributed events?• Co�n fl�p• M�ss�le launch• Rocket fir�ng• Start�ng a car

BOTTOM LINE: Each of these test events must be graded as “pass” or “fa�l,” and you must determ�ne the success cr�ter�a before the test beg�ns.

The nomograph can be used (pre-test) as a test plann�ng dev�ce to determ�ne how many tests w�ll be necessary to ver�fy that spec�fied performance has been met. The nomograph can also be used (post-test) to evaluate test data.

Note: There are two axes on the nomograph. One axis is the total number of trials. The other axis in the total number of failures. Additionally, the nomograph is non-linear.

TEST AND EvALUATION NOMOGRAPh


60

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

0.94

0.93

0.92

0.91

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.999

0.995

0.99

0.98

0.95

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.05

0.02

0.01

0.005

0.001

1000

700

500

400

300

200

140

100

70

50

40

30

20

10

5

2

0

NU

Mb

ER

OF TR

IALS

OR

SA

MP

LE S

IzE (n)

FAIL

UR

ES

(r)

1

2

3

4

5

7

9

RE

LIA

bIL

ITy

, R

CO

NF

IDE

NC

E L

Ev

EL

How do you get a solution?• From the data, determine the number of trials (total number of coin flips or missile shots, etc.) and locate the appropriate

line on the nomograph.• Determine the number of failures and locate the appropriate line on the nomograph.• Draw a point at the intersection of these two lines on the nomograph.• Any straight line drawn through this point is a valid solution for the data set used.for example:• Requirement: Your missile must hit the target at least 90% of the time, with at lease 80% confidence.• Given: You fired 20 missiles with19 hits and 1 failure.• What is the statistical confidence that you will have 90% success in the field with these missiles fired against THAT target?

Answer: 60% confidence.• Did you meet the requirement? NO, you achieved only 60% confidence of hitting THAT target 90% of the time, and the

requirement was 80% confidence or better. One other way to look at the same data is to say that you did achieve 90% prob-ability of success, but you only had 60% confidence in this result; either way you look at it, you did not meet the requirement.

NOTE: If you had fired 30 missiles and missed only 1 time, you would have achieved the 80% confidence along with the required 90% performance level.

T&E NOMOGRAPh (Cont�nued)


61

MODELING AND SIMULATION (M&S) PLANNING

Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) Planning

• Establ�sh a bus�ness process �mprovement team• Ident�fy h�gh payback process areas• Ident�fy potent�al legacy systems and data repos�tor�es• Ident�fy user base �nclud�ng remote s�tes• Capac�ty of PC workstat�ons• Bandw�dth of commun�cat�on l�nes• Where servers are/w�ll be located• Ident�fy legacy system host platforms

HOW DO WE PLAN?—A NOTIONAL APPROAcH

Simulation Support Plan (SSP) (Required by Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force)

• ACCESS YOUR SERVICE CENTERS OF M&S EXPERTISE• Establ�sh a s�mulat�on coord�nat�ng group; the EARLIER the better• Des�gn long-term M&S appl�cat�ons and the Integrated D�g�tal Env�ronment

through the acqu�s�t�on strategy, Test and Evaluat�on Management Plan (TEMP), Source Select�on Plan (SSP)

• Construct�ve, v�rtual, l�ve • CONTINUOUS PLANNING PROGRAM PLANNING

Test and Evaluat�on Strategy/TEMP

Simulation Based Acquisition: A New

Modeling and Simulation (M&S)Planning

• Ident�fy h�gh payback process areas• Ident�fy potent�al legacy systems, Serv�ce/Jo�nt-standard s�mulat�ons, arch�tectures and data repos�tor�es• Ident�fy where user and s�mulators are/w�ll be located• Determ�ne capab�l�t�es and arch�tectures

of ex�st�ng s�mulat�ons• Network bandw�dth requ�rements• IDE ut�l�zat�on opportun�t�es• Interoperab�l�ty/�nterface/�mmers�on

requ�rements• Requ�red capab�l�ty cap• Des�gn M&S arch�tectures• Establ�sh a s�mulat�on and Ver�ficat�on, Val�dat�on, and Authent�cat�on (SVV&A) plann�ng process• Establ�sh long-term plan, budget, document and �mplement• Manage, update, and �mplement the

SSP


62

hIE

RA

RC

hy

OF

MO

DE

LS

AN

D S

IMU

LA

TIO

NS

f

uN

cT

ION

SR

ES

OL

uT

ION

S

uP

PO

RT

ED

M

OD

EL

S A

ND

SIM

uL

AT

ION

S

fO

Rc

E O

R S

yS

TE

M L

EV

EL

Incr

eas�

ngR

esol

ut�o

n A

ctua

l P

erfo

rman

ce

Incr

eas�

ng

Agg

rega

t�on

Com

para

t�ve

Res

ults

Tes

t and

Eva

luat

�on

Ope

rat�o

nal R

eq’ts

. Dev

elop

men

tE

ffect

�ven

ess

Ana

lys�

sT

act�c

s D

evel

opm

ent M

�ss�

on

Pla

nn�n

g an

d R

ehea

rsal

Des

�gn

Man

ufac

tur�n

gC

ost

Sup

port

Dev

elop

men

tTe

ch R

eqts

Dev

.

Jo�n

t/Com

b�ne

d F

orce

s

A�r

W�n

gsB

attle

Gro

ups

A�r

W�n

g

EW

A/C

A�rc

raft

Sys

tem F

�re C

ontr

ol

Rad

ar

Cor

ps

A�r

Veh

�cle

(Sys

tem

/Sub

syst

em/C

ompo

nent

)

(One

-on-

One

)

(Man

y-on

-Man

y)

Thea

ter/

Cam

pai

gn

Mis

sio

n/b

attl

e

En

gag

emen

t

En

gin

eeri

ng

(Gro

ups

of S

yste

ms—

F

orce

Pac

kage

)

The

Hie

rarc

hica

l Agg

rega

tion

of M

odel

s re

duce

s fid

elity

si

gnifi

cant

ly a

nd m

ust b

e ev

alua

ted.

- (

PM

, DIS

, an

d D

MS

O)

DIS

= D

istri

bute

d In

tera

ctiv

e Si

mul

atio

n, D

MSO

= D

efen

se M

odel

ing

and

Sim

ulat

ion

Offi

ce


63

Th

E E

vO

LU

TIO

N O

F M

OD

EL

ING

AN

D S

IMU

LA

TIO

N

Dis

trib

ute

d

Inte

ract

ive

Sim

ula

tio

n

(DIS

)

Fu

ll S

yste

m

Pro

toty

pes

CA

D

CA

M

CA

EC

AD

AM

Sim

ula

tio

n-

bas

ed D

esig

n(v

irtu

al

Pro

toty

pin

gw

ith

mfg

. des

ign

,ri

sk/c

ost

an

alys

es,

mat

’l. d

esig

nat

ion

)CO

NC

EP

T

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

DE

PLO

YM

EN

T

AN

D S

UP

PO

RT

MA

NU

FAC

TU

RIN

G

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G D

ES

IGN

A

ND

AN

ALY

SIS

INTEGRATED

SySTEM DATA

TE

ST

AN

D

EvA

LU

AT

ION

VIR

TU

AL

PR

OTO

TY

PE

PH

YS

ICA

L M

OC

K-U

PF

INA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Sim

ula

tio

n-B

ased

A

cqu

isit

ion

The

Adv

anci

ng C

ompu

ter

and

Com

mun

icat

ions

Tec

hnol

ogy

Rev

olut

ions


64

PLANNING AND CONTROL TOOLS

4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q

Contract AwardIBRSRRPDRCDR

Symbol Mean�ng

Act�v�ty

Planned event complet�on

Actual event complet�on

Actual complet�on beh�nd schedule

Forecast complet�on beh�nd schedule

• Shows when key events are scheduled and when they are actually accompl�shed.

• Pr�mary strengths are s�mpl�c�ty and dep�ct�ng �nformat�on at the “b�g p�cture” level.• Does not show progress related to events or dependenc�es between events.

Milestone Chart (Example)

Planned activity scheduleStatus of activityForecast completion behind scheduleForecast completion ahead of schedule

Activity

Preliminary Design

Design Analysis

Define Interfaces

Interface Specs

Preliminary Drawings

NOTE: There is no standard set of Gantt chart symbols.

J F M A M J J A S O

Symbol MeaningCurrent

Date

• Shows planned start and fin�sh dates; may also show progress• Dep�cts act�v�t�es as hor�zontal bars �mposed over a t�me l�ne• Pr�mary strengths are s�mpl�c�ty and dep�ct�ng overall project plan and status• Can show dependenc�es between act�v�t�es (can be d�fficult to read as the

number of act�v�t�es and dependenc�es between act�v�t�es �ncreases)

CurrentDate

Gantt Chart (Example)


65

Network Schedules

PLANNING AND CONTROL (Cont�nued)

• Graph�cally portray dependenc�es and constra�nts among project act�v�t�es and the sequence �n wh�ch the act�v�t�es occur.

• Allows managers to conduct a systemat�c, d�sc�pl�nes and thorough rev�ew of the act�v�t�es requ�red to complete the project.

• Prov�des �nformat�on about early and late start and fin�sh t�mes.• Used to determ�ne the project’s cr�t�cal path, and slack or float �n

schedule act�v�t�es.• Generally, there are two types of networks: Arrow D�agramm�ng

Method (ADM), and Precedence D�agramm�ng Method (PDM).

Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM)• Also known as Act�v�ty-on-Arrow (AOA); �nformat�on about act�v�t�es �s

shown above/below the arrows connect�ng events �n the schedules. Events are usually shown as c�rcles, squares, or rectangles (see follow�ng page).

• ADM generally treats all relat�onsh�ps (see below) as fin�sh-to-start (�.e., first act�v�ty must fin�sh before the next act�v�ty can start).

• ADM can show other relat�onsh�ps (e.g., start-to-start, fin�sh-to-fin�sh) through the use of “dummy” activities.

Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM)• Also known as Act�v�ty-on-Node (AON); �nformat�on about act�v�t�es �s

shown �n/on the network nodes. Nodes are usually shown as squares or rectangles (see follow�ng page).

• L�nes connect�ng the nodes show the relat�onsh�ps between the act�v�t�es.

• PDM can show all forms of schedule relat�onsh�ps, �nclud�ng lead and lag s�tuat�ons (see below).

Finish-to-Start.Activity “A” must finishbefore Activity “b” canstart.

Finish-to-Finish.Activity “A” must finishbefore Activity “b” canfinish.

A Start-to-Start.Activity “A” must startbefore Activity “b” canstart.

A Start-to-Finish.Activity “A” must startbefore Activity “b” canfinish. Rarely used.

b

b

A b

A

b


66

PL

AN

NIN

G A

ND

CO

NT

RO

L T

OO

LS

Net

wo

rk S

ched

ule

s (E

xam

ple

)

Sla

ck =

LS

–E

S o

r L

F –

EF

Cri

tica

l Pat

h

Du

mm

y A

ctiv

ity

Tas

k ID

(ES

, EF

)

Du

rati

on

(LS

, LF

)

Tas

k ID

Du

rati

on

F(1

8, 2

6)

9(1

8, 2

6)

h(2

7, 3

8)

12(2

7, 3

8)

E(1

7, 2

4)

8(1

9, 2

6)

G(2

2, 3

1)

10(2

9, 3

8)

b(6

, 16)

11(8

, 18)

D(6

, 21)

16(1

3, 2

8)

A(1

, 5)

5(1

, 5)

C(6

, 17)

12(6

, 17)

I (

39, 4

8)

10 (

39, 4

8)

J(4

9, 5

3)

5(4

9, 5

3)

Net

wo

rk S

ched

ule

s (E

xam

ples

)

Tas

k ID

Du

rati

on

Pre

dec

esso

rA

5--

b11

AC

12A

D16

AE

8b

F9

C, D

G10

Dh

12E

, FI

10G

, hJ

5I

A 5

Pre

ced

ence

Dia

gra

mm

ing

Met

ho

d (

PD

M)

or

Act

ivit

y-o

n-N

od

e (A

ON

)

Leg

end

15

15

C 12

617

617

F 9

1826

1826

h 12I 10

J 5

2738

2738

b 11

616

818

D 16

621

1328

E 8

1724

1926

G 10

2231

2938

3948

3948

4953

4953

Arr

ow

Dia

gra

mm

ing

Met

ho

d (

AD

M) *

or

Act

ivit

y-o

n-A

rro

w (

AO

A)

ES

EF

LS

LF

ES

= E

arly

Sta

rtE

F =

Ear

ly F

inis

hL

S =

Lat

e S

tart

LF

= L

ate

Fin

ish

Leg

end

ES

= E

arly

Sta

rt

EF

= E

arly

Fin

ish

LS

= L

ate

Sta

rt

LF

= L

ate

Fin

ish

Eve

nt

Cri

tica

l Pat

h*

NO

TE

: Als

o so

met

�mes

ref

erre

d to

as

Cr�t

�cal

Pat

h M

etho

d (C

PM

) or

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

�on

Rev

�ew

Tec

hn�q

ue (

PE

RT

)

NO

TE

1:

Tas

k ID

, Dur

at�o

n, a

nd P

rede

cess

or �n

fo �s

th

e sa

me

for

both

exa

mpl

esN

OT

E 2

:E

�ght

-hou

r cl

ock

�s u

sed

�n b

oth

exam

ples

NO

TE

1

NO

TE

2

NO

TE

2

Sla

ck =

LS

–E

S o

r L

F –

EF

Cri

tica

l Pat

h

Du

mm

y A

ctiv

ity

Tas

k ID

(ES

, EF

)

Du

rati

on

(LS

, LF

)

Tas

k ID

Du

rati

on

F(1

8, 2

6)

9(1

8, 2

6)

h(2

7, 3

8)

12(2

7, 3

8)

E(1

7, 2

4)

8(1

9, 2

6)

G(2

2, 3

1)

10(2

9, 3

8)

b(6

, 16)

11(8

, 18)

D(6

, 21)

16(1

3, 2

8)

A(1

, 5)

5(1

, 5)

C(6

, 17)

12(6

, 17)

I (

39, 4

8)

10 (

39, 4

8)

J(4

9, 5

3)

5(4

9, 5

3)

Tas

k ID

Du

rati

on

Pre

dec

esso

rA

5--

b11

AC

12A

D16

AE

8b

F9

C, D

G10

Dh

12E

, FI

10G

, hJ

5I

A 5

Pre

ced

ence

Dia

gra

mm

ing

Met

ho

d (

PD

M)

or

Act

ivit

y-o

n-N

od

e (A

ON

)

Leg

end

15

15

C 12

617

617

F 9

1826

1826

h 12I 10

J 5

2738

2738

b 11

616

818

D 16

621

1328

E 8

1724

1926

G 10

2231

2938

3948

3948

4953

4953

Arr

ow

Dia

gra

mm

ing

Met

ho

d (

AD

M) *

or

Act

ivit

y-o

n-A

rro

w (

AO

A)

ES

EF

LS

LF

ES

= E

arly

Sta

rtE

F =

Ear

ly F

inis

hL

S =

Lat

e S

tart

LF

= L

ate

Fin

ish

Leg

end

ES

= E

arly

Sta

rt

EF

= E

arly

Fin

ish

LS

= L

ate

Sta

rt

LF

= L

ate

Fin

ish

Eve

nt

Cri

tica

l Pat

h*

NO

TE

: Als

o so

met

�mes

ref

erre

d to

as

Cr�t

�cal

Pat

h M

etho

d (C

PM

) or

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

�on

Rev

�ew

Tec

hn�q

ue (

PE

RT

)

NO

TE

1:T

ask

ID, D

urat

�on,

and

Pre

dece

ssor

�nfo

�s

the

sam

e fo

r bo

th e

xam

ples

NO

TE

2:

E�g

ht-h

our

cloc

k �s

use

d �n

bot

h ex

am

ples

NO

TE

1

NO

TE

2

NO

TE

2


67

PL

AN

NIN

G A

ND

CO

NT

RO

L T

OO

LS

Exa

mp

les

of

Net

wo

rk S

ched

ulin

g S

oft

war

eG

antt

Ch

art v

iew

Net

wo

rk v

iew

NOTE

: Tas

k na

me,

dur

atio

n, a

nd p

rede

cess

or in

form

atio

n is

the

sam

e as

in N

etw

ork

Sche

dule

on

the

prev

ious

pag

e.


68

PL

AN

NIN

G A

ND

CO

NT

RO

L T

OO

LS

Sch

edu

le D

evel

op

men

t

IMP

PM

Pri S

ys

IPT

A

Sec

Sys

SE

IPT

DH

/W

IPT

BIP

T E

S/W

IPT

CIP

T F

Pro

gra

m O

rg S

tru

ctu

re

Inte

rmed

iate

Sch

edu

leM

aste

r S

che d

ule

Det

aile

d S

ched

ule

Det

aile

d S

ched

ule

Des

ign

Engi

neer

ing

Inte

g rat

ion

Ass e

mbl

yTe

s t a

nd E

valu

atio

n

WB

S1.0

1.1.

1

1.1.

2

1.1.

3

1.1.

4

1.1

1.3.

1

1.3.

2

1.3.

3

1.3

1.4.

1

1.4.

2

1.4.

3

1.4.

4

1.4

1.5.

1

1.5.

2

1.5

1.2.

1

1.2.

2

1.2.

3

1.2

SO

W,

Sp

ecs,

SE

P, e

tc.

Wo

rkP

acka

ges

Pro

gra

mR

equ

irem

ent s

Tec

hn

ical

Do

cum

ents

Pro

gra

mP

lan

s

Res

ou

rce

Pla

nn

ing

Sch

edu

les

Tas

kL

ist s

ICD

,C

DD

,C

PD

,et

c.

S.E

.P

roce

s s

IPT

CIP

T C

IPT

CIP

T C

IPT

C

Trac

k 1

Trac

k 2

Trac

k 3

Trac

k 4

Trac

k 5Res

po

nsi

bili

ty M

atri

x

Du

rati

on

& R

eso

urc

eE

stim

ates

Net

wo

rk (

Tas

k S

eque

nce)

His

tori

cal D

ata

SM

Es


69

26

25

2

4

23

2

2

21

2

0

19

1

8

17

1

6

15

1

4

13

1

2

11

1

0

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0W

OR

KIN

G D

Ay

S P

RIO

R T

O C

OM

PL

ET

ION

(L

EA

D T

IME

)

(SU

bC

ON

TR

AC

T

PAR

T)

(PU

RC

hA

SE

PA

RT

)

(PU

RC

hA

SE

PA

RT

)(P

UR

Ch

AS

E P

AR

T)

(SU

bA

SS

EM

bLy

“b

”)

(SU

bA

SS

EM

bLy

“A

”)

FIN

AL

AS

SE

Mb

Ly

(FA

bR

ICA

TE

D P

AR

T

IN-h

OU

SE

)

TE

ST

S

hIP

6

87

4

1

2 35

1211

109

LE

AD

TIM

E C

hA

RT

(Use

w�th

L�n

e of

Bal

ance

on

next

pag

e.)


70

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

OD

NF

JA

MJ

MJ

21

43

56

79

810

1121

SH

TN

OM

OR

TN

OC

PL

ST

NIO

08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 0

dennalP

la utcA

6225

4223

2221

0219

1817

1615

1413

1211

18

90

56

71

23

40

NOI

TC

UD

OR

PD

AEL

TIM

ER

AH

CT

22K

RO

WT

NO

M/S

YA

DH

61

47

8

2 35

9 0111

12

tohspanS

n ie

mit1:

aM

y

LIN

E O

F b

AL

AN

CE

TE

Ch

NIq

UE


71

ACqUISITION PROGRAM bASELINEKey Performance Parameter (KPP)—An Example

Object�ve

Threshold

X

.85

.80

.75

.70

.65

(Prob)

Ex�tCr�ter�a

(.77)

Full-Rate Production

CurrentEst�mate

Growth (Maturity) CurveSURvIvAbILITy

Ex�tCr�ter�a

(.73)

* In this example, the current estimate falls below the threshold—this represents a baseline breach of performance.

• Every program must have an APB start�ng at program �n�t�at�on (normally M�lestone B).• The APB reflects the threshold and object�ve values for a m�n�mum number of cost,

schedule, and performance parameters that descr�be the program over �ts l�fe cycle.• Cost thresholds and object�ves reflect major elements of l�fe cycle cost (RDT&E,

procurement, PAUC, APUC, etc.) • Schedule thresholds and object�ves reflect cr�t�cal events (m�lestone dec�s�ons, start of

DT/OT, first fl�ght, IOC, etc.) • Performance thresholds and object�ves are key performance parameters (KPPs)

extracted verbat�m from the CDD/CPD.• The JROC requ�res four mandatory KPPs: net-ready, surv�vab�l�ty, mater�el ava�lab�l�ty,

and force protect�on. Two add�t�onal KPPs are requ�red for selected programs: system tra�n�ng and energy effic�ency.

• The MDA may add other s�gn�ficant performance parameters �f necessary.• The APB �s s�gned by PM, PEO, and CAE, as appropr�ate, and approved by MDA.

System Integration System Demonstration Low-Rate Initial Prod

DRRMS b MS C FRP DR

Basel�neValues

Legend:MS—M�lestoneDRR—Des�gn Read�ness Rev�ewFRP DR—Full-rate Product�on Des�gn Rev�ewCDD—Capab�l�t�es Des�gn DocumentCPD—Capab�l�t�es Product�on DocumentMDA—M�lestone Dec�s�on Author�tyPM—Program ManagerPEO—Program Execut�ve Officer

System Development andDemonstrat�on Phase

Product�on andDeployment Phase

CAE—Component Acqu�s�t�on Execut�veIOC—In�t�al Operat�onal Capab�l�tyAPUC—Average Procurement Un�t CostPAUC—Program Acqu�s�t�on Un�t CostRDT&E—Research, Development, Test and Evaluat�onJROC—Jo�nt Requ�rements Overs�ght Counc�lDT/OT—Development Test/Operat�onal Test


72

RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS MODEL

R�sk Ident�f�cat�on

R�sk Analys�s

R�sk M�t�gat�on Plann�ng

R�sk Track�ng

R�sk M�t�gat�on Implementat�on

Root cause analys�s of the r�sks �dent�f�edRoot cause analys�s

A Process, Not an Event

ROOT CAUSE ANALySIS

• R�sk �dent�ficat�on �ncludes analys�s to �dent�fy the root causes of the r�sks �dent�fied.

• Root causes are �dent�fied by exam�n�ng each WBS product and process element �n terms of the sources or areas of r�sk.

• An approach for �dent�fy�ng and comp�l�ng a l�st of root causes to:

– l�st WBS product or process elements;– exam�ne each �n terms of r�sk sources or areas;– determ�ne what could go wrong; and– ask “why” mult�ple t�mes unt�l the source(s) �s d�scovered.

DoD R�sk Management Gu�deAugust 2006


73

Prio

ritiz

edLi

st

Avo

idT

rans

fer

Ass

ume

Qu

anti

fy S

ome

Qu

alif

y A

ll

Iden

tify

Sel

ect h

ow to

Mit

igat

e

An

alyz

epr

iorit

ize/

list

Tra

ckin

gst

atus

topl

an

Con

trol

Pla

n fo

r ea

chpr

ogra

m b

yph

ase/

eval

uatio

n

Miti

gatio

n Im

plem

enta

tion

thro

ugh

Inte

grat

ed P

rodu

ct a

nd P

roce

ss D

evel

opm

ent (

IPP

D)

Per

iod

icU

pd

ate

Raw

Lis

t

Upd

ate

asne

eded

Inte

grat

ein

to P

rogr

am

Pla

ns &

C

ontr

ol T

ools

as n

eces

sary

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T P

RO

CE

SS

—D

ETA

ILS


74

RISk MANAGEMENT

1. Develop program plans to the work package level.2. Ident�fy and analyze r�sk at the lowest work package/WBS level.3. M�t�gate and act�vely manage the h�ghest r�sk work packages; r�sks that

you can’t m�t�gate you must accept.

TRADEOff ANALySIS*

1. Ident�fy alternat�ve solut�ons2. Select evaluat�on cr�ter�a/factors and MOEs, �.e., cost, schedule,

performance cr�ter�a3. We�ght evaluat�on cr�ter�a4. Develop ut�l�ty funct�ons for each factor 5. Conduct evaluat�on (we�ghted ut�l�ty summary table where we�ght �s

mult�pl�ed by ut�l�ty funct�on value)6. Perform sens�t�v�ty check7. Select h�ghest scored alternat�ve

RISK AND TRADEOFF ANALySIS

Risk PlanningR�sk Management Plan

(The Process)

Risk IDTechn�calCostScheduleLessons learnedWBS

Risk AnalysisNetworksS�mulat�onWatch l�stsTemplates

Risk MitigationAvo�danceControlAssumpt�onTransfer

Risk Management

*With Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV), aggressive cost objectives are established as a result of trading performance and schedule for cost.

SOW DELIvERAbLES WBS

OBS

WORK PKG PLANNING PKG

GANTT/NETWORK

CHART

COSTEST.

COSTVS

TIME

RISK MGMTPROCESS:

ANALYZE ANDMITIGATE RISK

Specs Contract

Risk TrackingMon�tor�ngReportsFeedbackT&E Results


75

TEChNICAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTThe Concept

TECHNICAL PARAMETER VALUEe.g.,MTBF We�ght Fuel Consumpt�on

Tolerance Band

Threshold

Planned Value

Current Est�mate

TIME

Var�at�on

Planned Profile

Ach�evement to date

M�lestones

}

1. ARE ALL vIAbLE ALTERNATIvES bEING EXPLORED?

– Is each alternat�ve clearly defined?– Have the alternat�ves been

prescreened? How?– Are affordab�l�ty l�m�ts establ�shed?– Can all of the screened-out

alternat�ves be defended?

2. ARE SELECTION CRITERIA IDENTIFIED?

– Are all s�gn�ficant cr�ter�a �dent�fied?– Do the cr�ter�a d�scr�m�nate among

alternat�ves? – Are the cr�ter�a measurable?– Have the cr�ter�a been pre-approved?

3. IS ThE CRITERIA WEIGhTING SySTEM ACCEPTAbLE?

– Are rat�onales for cr�ter�a we�ghts expla�ned?

– Are cr�ter�a we�ghts cons�stent w�th gu�dance?

– Are cr�ter�a we�ghts cons�stently d�str�buted �n the tree?

4. ARE UTILITy (SCORING) CRITERIA DETERMINED?

– Is defens�ble rat�onale establ�shed for each cr�ter�on?

– Are cr�ter�a developed from operat�onal measures of effect�veness where poss�ble?

– Do all plans use the same numer�cal scale?

– Is the locat�on of the “zero po�nt” expla�ned?

5. ARE EvALUATION METhODS DOCUMENTED?

– Are test data rel�ab�l�ty est�mates (confidence levels) �ncorporated?

– Are models val�dated? When? By Whom?

6. hAS SENSITIvITy bEEN ESTIMATED?

– Are error ranges carr�ed through w�th worst-on-worst case analys�s?

– Have the effects of changes �n the ut�l�ty curve shapes been exam�ned?

– Have rat�onales for the l�m�ts been developed?

PROGRAM MANAGER’S ChECKLIST FOR REvIEW OF TRADEOFF PLANNING AND STUDIES


76

WhAT IS SySTEMS ENGINEERING?

• Internat�onal Counc�l on Systems Eng�neer�ng (INCOSE) defin�t�on:

Systems Eng�neer�ng �s an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the real�zat�on of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and requ�red functionality early �n the development cycle, document�ng requ�rements, then proceed�ng w�th design synthesis and system validation wh�le considering the complete problem…

focus is on technical systems development and integrative engi-neering to meet requirements.

-- www.�ncose.org

SySTEMS ENGINEERING TASKS

• Ensure essent�al techn�cal th�ngs get done• Ver�fy techn�cal solut�ons to sat�sfy customer capab�l�ty requ�rements• Develop a total system des�gn solut�on

– Des�gn �n downstream l�fe-cycle needs (open system approach)– Balance cost, schedule, performance, and r�sk

• Generate and track techn�cal �nformat�on needed for dec�s�on mak�ng and configurat�on management

SySTEMS ENGINEERING POLICy IN DoD(Signed by the Honorable Mike Wynne, USD(AT&L) (Acting), February 20, 2004)

• All programs, regardless of ACAT shall:– Apply an SE approach– Develop a Systems Eng�neer�ng Plan (SEP)

◆ Descr�be techn�cal approach, �nclud�ng processes, resources, and metr�cs

◆ Deta�l t�m�ng and conduct of SE techn�cal rev�ews

• D�rector, Defense Systems (DS), USD(AT&L) tasked to prov�de gu�dance for DoDI 5000.2– Recommend changes �n Defense SE– Establ�sh a sen�or-level SE forum– Assess SEP and program read�ness to proceed before each DAB

and other USD(AT&L)-led acqu�s�t�on rev�ews


77

Sy

ST

EM

S E

NG

INE

ER

ING

PR

OC

ES

S—

TE

Ch

NIC

AL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

PR

OC

ES

SE

S

Tec

hn�c

alP

lann

�ng

Req

u�re

men

tsM

anag

emen

t

Con

f�gur

at�o

nM

anag

emen

t

Tra

ns�t�

on

Tec

hn�c

alA

sses

smen

t

Dec

�s�o

nA

naly

s�s

Des

�gn

Sol

ut�o

n

Ver

�f�ca

t�on

Req

u�re

men

tsD

evel

opm

ent

V

al�d

at�o

n

Inte

grat

�on

Impl

emen

tat�o

n

Log�

cal A

naly

s�s

and

Allo

cat�o

n

Tra

ns�t�

on

Rea

l�zat

�on

Pro

cess

es

Des

�gn

Pro

cess

es

R�s

kM

anag

emen

t

Inte

rfac

eM

anag

emen

t

Dat

aM

anag

emen

t


78

Sy

ST

EM

S E

NG

INE

ER

ING

PR

OC

ES

S L

INK

AG

ES

Logi

cal (

func

tiona

l)A

naly

sis

Stak

ehol

der r

equi

rem

ents

Def

initi

on

Requ

irem

ents

Deve

lopm

ent

Note

: Par

ts o

f “V”

pro

cess

in d

ark

gray

box

es m

atch

the

Syst

ems

Engi

neer

ing

Proc

ess

Mod

el. T

his

proc

ess

is fo

llow

edin

pha

se a

ctiv

ities

“Vs”

on

succ

eedi

n g p

ages

.

Ope

ratio

nal E

xpec

tatio

ns

Use

r Ex

pect

atio

ns

Con

figur

atio

nIte

m E

xpec

tatio

ns

tions

Out

put/T

rans

ition

Inpu

t

req

uire

men

ts(U

ser N

eeds

) Ana

lysi

s

real

izat

ion

&As

sess

men

t

Valid

atio

n

Verif

icat

ion

Inte

grat

ion

Des

ign

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Des

ign

Solu

tion

Deve

lopm

ent

& De

finitio

n

func

tiona

l Exp

ecta

tions

Tran

sitio

n

Har

dwar

e fa

bric

atio

nO

pera

tor/M

aint

aine

rTr

aini

ngSo

ftw

are

Cre

atio

n/C

odin

g


79

DE

FE

NS

E A

Cq

UIS

ITIO

N M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T F

RA

ME

WO

RK

—T

EC

hN

ICA

L “

v”

AC

TIv

ITIE

S

Pre-

Syst

ems

Acqu

isiti

on

User

Nee

ds &

Tech

nolo

gy O

ppor

tuni

ties

PRO

DUCT

ION

& DE

PLOY

MEN

TO

PERA

TIO

NS&

SUPP

ORT

LRIP

/IOT&

E

SYST

EM D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

& D

EMO

NSTR

ATIO

N

FRP

DECI

SIO

NRE

VIEW

DESI

GN

READ

INES

SRE

VIEW

CIO

CB

Syst

ems

Acqu

isiti

onSu

stai

nmen

t

• Pro

cess

ent

ry a

t Mile

ston

es A

, B, o

r C (o

r with

in p

hase

s)• P

rogr

am o

utye

ar fu

ndin

g w

hen

it m

akes

sen

se, b

ut n

o la

ter

th

an M

ilest

one

B (u

nles

s en

terin

g at

C)

A

CONC

EPT

REFI

NEM

ENT

CONC

EPT

DECI

SIO

N

FOC

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T Tech

nic

al A

ctiv

ity

“V”

for

Eac

h P

has

e

Lege

nd:

FOC

—Fu

ll O

pera

tiona

l Cap

abilit

yIO

C—

Initi

al O

pera

tiona

l Cap

abilit

yLR

IP/O

T&E—

Low

Rat

e In

itial

Pro

duct

ion/

Ope

ratio

nal T

est a

nd E

valu

atio

n


80

CONCEPT REFINEMENT PhASE SySTEMS ENGINEERING (SE) ACTIvITIES

TEChNOLOGy DEvELOPMENT PhASE SE ACTIvITIES

Demo & Validate SysConcepts & Te chnology Maturity

Versus Defined User NeedsTrades

OUTPUTSINPUTS• ICD & Draft CDD• Preferred Sys Concept• Exit Criteria• T&E Strategy• Support & Maintenance

Concepts & Technologies• AoA • SEP • TDS

Develop System Perf (&Constraints) Spec & Enabling/Critical Tech Verification Plan

Demo/Model Integrated SystemVersus Performance Spec

Develop Functional Definitions forEnabling/Critical Technologies &

Associated Verification Plan

Interpret User Needs.Analyze Operational Capabilities

& Environmental Constraints

Demo System Functionality Versus Plan

Demo Enabling/Critical TechnologyComponents Versus Plan

Develop System Concepts, i.e.,Enabling/Critical Te chnologies, Update

Constraints & Cost/Risk Drivers

Trades

Decompose Functional Definitions into CriticalComponent Definition & Tech Verification Plan

• Sys Performance Spec• LFT&E Waiver Request• TEMP • SEP • PESHE • PPP • TRA• Validated System Support & Maintenance Objectives & Requirements• Inputs to: –IBR –ISP –STA –CDD –Acq Strat –Affordability Assessment –Cost/Manpower Est.

SRR

ICDAoA PlanExit CriteriaAlternative Maintenance & Logistics Concepts

Prelim Sys SpecT&E StrategySEPSupport & Maintenance Concepts & TechInputs to: -Draft CDD -TDS -AoA -Cost/Manpower Est.

Decompose Concept Performance into Functional Definition & Verification Objectives

Analyze/AssessSystem Concept VersusFunctional Capabilities

Analyze/Assess Concepts Versus Defined User Needs &

Environmental Constraints

Assess/Analyze Concept &Verify System

Concept’s Performance

Develop Component Concepts, i.e., Enabling/Critical Technologies, Constraints & Cost/Risk Drivers

Analyze/AssessEnabling/Critical Components

Versus Capabilities

Decompose Concept Functional Definition into Component Concepts

& Assessment Objectives

Develop Concept Performance (& Constraints)

Definition & Verification Objectives

Interpret User Needs,Analyze Operational Capabilities &


INPUTSOUTPUTS

Trades

ASRITR

Trades


81

SySTEM DEvELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PhASE SySTEMS ENGINEERING ACTIvITIES

PRODUCTION AND DEPLOyMENT PhASE SySTEMS ENGINEERING ACTIvITIES

Trades

OUTPUTSINPUTS

Trades

• Sys Performance Spec• Exit Criteria• Validated Sys Support &

Maintenance Objectives &Requirements

• APB • CDD • SEP • ISP • TEMP

Interpret User Needs, RefineSystem Performance Specs &


Develop SystemFunctional Specs &

System Verification Plan

Evolve Functional PerformanceSpecs into CI Functional (Design to)

Specs and CI Verification Plan

Evolve CI Functional Specsinto Product “Build-to”

Documentation and Inspection Plan

• Initial Prod Baseline • Test Reports• Elements of Product Support• Risk Assessment • TEMP• SEP • TRA • PESHE• Inputs to: –CPD –STA –ISP

–Cost/Manpower Est.

Fabricate, Assemble, Code toBuild-to Documentation

System DT&E, LFT&E & OAs,Verify System Functionality &

Constraints Compliance to Specs

Individual CIVerification DT&E

Integrated DT&E, LFT&E &EOAs Verify Performance

Compliance to Specs

Combined DT&E/OT&E/LFT&EDemonstrate System to Specified User

Needs & Environmental Constraints

FCASVR PRR

CDR

TRRSFR

SRR

PDR

FTA

RCM

LORAMTA

FMECA

OUTPUTS

J-6 Interoperability& Supportability Validation

Full-Up System Level LFT&E

Independent IOT&E

LFPTReport toCongress

INPUTS

JITC InteroperabilityCertification Testing

OTRR

BLRIPReport toCongress

Analyze Deficiencies ToDetermine Corrective Actions

• Test Results• Exit Criteria• APB • CPD • SEP •TEMP• Product Support Package

Verify & ValidateProduction Configuration

• Production Baseline• Test Reports• TEMP • PESHE • SEP• Input to: –Cost/Manpower Est.

PCA

Modify Configuration (Hardware/Software/Specs) To Correct Deficiencies


82

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT PhASESySTEMS ENGINEERING ACTIvITIES

OUTPUTSINPUTS

Data for In-Service Review:• Input to CDD for Next Increment• Modifications/Upgrades to Fielded

Systems

• SEP

• Process Change—Hardware/Support

• Materiel Change

Trades

• Service Use Data• User Feedback• Failure Reports• Discrepancy Reports• SEP

Monitor and CollectAll ServiceUse Data

Analyze Data toDetermine

Root Cause

DetermineSystem Risk/

Hazard Severity

DevelopCorrective

Action

Implement and Field

Assess Risk ofImproved System

Integrate and Test Corrective Action

Trades

In-ServiceReview

•


83

REqUIREMENTS (USER NEEDS) ANALySIS qUESTIONS

• What are the reasons beh�nd the system development?• What are the customer expectat�ons? How w�ll they measure the

performance of the system?• Who are the users and how do they �ntend to use the product?• What do the users expect of the product?• What are the�r levels of expert�se?• W�th wh�ch env�ronmental character�st�cs must the system comply?• What are ex�st�ng and planned �nterfaces?• What funct�ons w�ll the system perform, expressed �n customer

language?• What are the constra�nts—hardware, software, econom�c, procedural

– w�th wh�ch the system must comply?• What w�ll be the final form of the product—model, prototype, mass

product�on?

• Specific, Clear, and Unambiguous: Conta�ns no vague terms• Understandable: Stated w�th suffic�ent deta�l �n everyday

language• Concise: Conta�ns no unnecessary words• Consistent: Top-to-bottom cons�stency w�th �dent�cal usage of

terms and conformance to standards • Stable: Basel�ned and under configurat�on control• Traceable: Der�ved from the m�ss�on profile or the contractor’s

des�gn pol�c�es• verifiable: Determ�ne whether the product �s sat�sfy�ng the

requ�rement• Feasible: Can ach�eve, produce, and ma�nta�n the requ�rement

ATTRIbUTES OF A WELL-DEFINED REqUIREMENT


84

SySTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS— DESIGN OPERATIONS

X

f1

r1

f2

f3

fN

X

XX X

X X

r2

r3

rN

• Customer Needs• Tech Base• Prior Systems Engineering Output• Program Decision requirements• Budget

requirementsDevelopment

• Technical Planning• requirements Management• Configuration Management• Decision Analysis• Technical Assessment• risk Management• Interface Management• Data Management

Do what? functionsHow well? PerformanceEnvironment? Interfaces

ICD req’ts Spec req’tsImplied req’tsQuestions for requirers

TechnicalManagement

Inte

grat

ion,

Ver

ifica

tion/

Valid

atio

n, T

&E

Desi

gn L

oop

requ

irem

ents

Loo

p

DesignSolution

Logical Analysis

ImplementationDecisionDatabase

TIMELINE

HI / LO

Baselines

functional(System) Allocated

(Perf)

Product(Detail)

Specifications

System

Item PerfItem Detail

Process

Material

TO

CrUISE

CLIMB

LAND DESCEND CLIMB

CrUISE

LOITEr

ATTACK

(67 min., 50 km range)

fLY

TAKEOff CrUISE LAND

(2 min.) (60 min.,50 km range)

(5 min.)

AIrCrAfT

ENGINE COMMUNICATIONSAIrfrAME

• Analyze functions• Decompose function• Allocate requirements

f1

f2

f3

fN

X X

X X

X

X X

Hw1

Hw2

Sw1

SwN


85

Sy

ST

EM

S E

NG

INE

ER

ING

DE

SIG

N C

ON

SID

ER

AT

ION

S—

“Th

E F

ISh

bO

NE

”

Sys

tem

Perf

orm

ance

Tech

nica

lE

ffec

tiven

ess

Sys

tem

Eff

ectiv

enes

s

Sys

tem

Ava

ilabi

lity

Pro

cess

Eff

icie

ncy

Cap

abili

ties

Func

tions

Pri

oriti

es Rel

iabi

lity

Mai

ntai

nabi

lity

Sup

port

abili

ty

Pro

duci

bilit

y

Ope

ratio

ns

Mai

nten

ance

Logi

stic

s

Life

Cyc

le C

ost /

Tot

al O

wne

rshi

p C

ost

SYST

EM A

VAIL

ABIL

ITY

Relia

bilit

y / M

aint

aina

bilit

y / S

uppo

rtab

ility

: RA

M,

COTS

Pr

oduc

ibili

ty: V

alue

Eng

inee

ring

, Qu

alit

y, M

anuf

actu

ring

Cap

abili

ty

Affo

rdab

leO

pera

tiona

lE

ffec

tiven

ess

SY

STE

M P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Ope

n S

yste

ms

Des

ign

Inte

rope

rabi

lity

Arc

hite

ctur

alIm

pact

s on

Sys

tem

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns

Sur

viva

bilit

y an

d

Sus

cept

ibili

tyA

nti-T

ampe

rH

uman

Sys

tem

s In

tegr

atio

nA

cces

sibi

lity

Inse

nsiti

ve M

uniti

ons

Sys

tem

Sec

urity

Info

rmat

ion

Ass

uran

ceC

orro

sion

Pre

vent

ion

CO

TSD

ispo

sal a

nd D

emili

tariz

atio

nE

nviro

nmen

t, S

afet

y,

Occ

upat

iona

l Hea

lth

Des

ign

Tool

s

Mod

elin

g &

Sim

ulat

ions

Ope

ratio

ns: I

nter

oper

abili

ty, I

nfor

mat

ion

Ass

uran

ce, S

urvi

vabi

lity

and

Sus

cept

ibili

ty, H

uman

Sys

tem

s In

tegr

atio

n, S

yste

m S

ecur

ity, A

nti-T

ampe

rM

aint

enan

ce: C

orro

sion

Pre

vent

ion

and

Con

trol,

Acc

essi

bilit

y,In

tero

pera

bilit

y, U

niqu

e Id

entif

icat

ion

of It

ems

Logi

stic

s: S

uppo

rtabi

lity

Pro

duci

bilit

y: V

alue

Eng

inee

ring,

Qua

lity,

Man

ufac

turin

g C

apab

ility

PR

OC

ES

S E

FFIC

IEN

CY


86

TE

Ch

NIC

AL

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

PR

OC

ES

SE

S(S

ee t

op

of

Sys

tem

s E

ng

inee

rin

g P

roce

ss C

har

t, p

age

77.)

H

OW

DO

I M

AK

E D

EC

ISIO

NS

?

WIL

L IT

DO

A J

OB

TH

AT J

US

TIF

IES

TH

E E

XP

EN

SE

?

AR

E W

E D

OIN

G T

HE

RIG

HT

TH

ING

?

HO

W D

O I

KN

OW

IT W

OR

KS

?

W

ILL

IT M

EE

T T

HE

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E C

RIT

ER

IA?

W

ILL

IT A

LL W

OR

K T

OG

ET

HE

R ?

D

O W

E K

NO

W W

HAT

WE

HA

VE

?

A

RE

WE

RE

AD

Y T

O G

O O

N ?

H

OW

DO

I R

UN

TH

IS P

RO

GR

AM

?

TR

AD

E S

TU

DIE

S

EF

FE

CT

IVE

NE

SS

AN

ALY

SIS

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

TE

CH

NIC

AL

PE

RF

ME

AS

UR

ES

MO

DE

LIN

G A

ND

SIM

ULA

TIO

N

TE

CH

NIC

AL

PE

RF

ME

AS

UR

ES

CO

NF

IGU

RAT

ION

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

VIE

WS

INT

EG

RAT

ED

PLA

NN

ING


87

SP

EC

IFIC

AT

ION

DE

vE

LO

PM

EN

T A

ND

TE

Ch

NIC

AL

RE

vIE

WS

Pre-

Syst

ems

Acqu

isiti

onSy

stem

s Ac

quis

ition

Sust

ainm

ent

Syst

em D

evel

opm

ent &

De

mon

stra

tion

Ope

ratio

ns &

Su

ppor

tCo

ncep

t re

finem

ent

Tech

nolo

gy

Deve

lopm

ent

Syst

em

Inte

grat

ion

LrIP

frP

& De

ploy

men

t

IOC

fOC

Sust

ainm

ent

Disp

osal

Spec

ifica

tions

Syst

em S

peci

ficat

ion

Item

Per

form

ance

Spe

cific

atio

ns (D

esig

n-to

)

ASr

Srr

Sfr S/

w r

evie

ws

PDr

CDr

Trr

Item

Det

aile

d Sp

ecifi

catio

n

(Bui

ld-to

)

Conf

igur

atio

n Ba

selin

es

Func

tiona

l Bas

elin

e

Allo

cate

d Ba

selin

e

Prod

uct B

asel

ine

Prr

SVr

•Inc

reas

ed e

mph

asis

on

evol

utio

nary

acq

uisi

tion

and

spira

l dev

elop

men

t•T

echn

olog

y de

velo

pmen

t stra

tegy

: Ap

prov

ed b

y M

ilest

one

Deci

sion

Auth

ority

(MDA

) at M

ilest

one

A•S

yste

ms

Engi

neer

ing

Plan

: In

tegr

ated

with

acq

uisi

tion

stra

tegy

and

sub

mitt

ed fo

r MD

A ap

prov

al a

t eac

h m

ilest

one

revi

ew, r

egar

dles

s of

Acq

uisi

tion

Cate

gory

(ACA

T)

Tech

nica

l rev

iew

s an

d Au

dits

AB

C

SE P

roce

ss

Conf

igur

atio

n Co

ntro

lPr

oduc

t Upg

rade

sPl

anni

ng fo

r Dis

posa

l

(rep

eate

d in

Eac

h Ph

ase)

PCAfr

P

(ICD)

Capa

bilit

y De

velo

pmen

t Do

cum

ent (

CDD)

Docu

men

t (CP

D)

Prod

uctio

n &

Depl

oym

ent

Syst

em

Dem

onst

ratio

n

ASr

S/w

rev

iew

s

BBC C

Drr

Initi

al C

apab

ilitie

s Do

cum

ent

(ICD)

Capa

bilit

y De

velo

pmen

t Do

cum

ent (

CDD)

Capa

bilit

y Pr

oduc

tion

Docu

men

t (CP

D)


88

TEChNICAL REvIEW DEFINITIONS

ASR (Alternative Systems Review) – Assess that preferred system solut�on meets needs.

SRR (System Requirements Review) – Ensure system performance capab�l�t�es are cons�stent w�th technology solut�on and traceable to In�t�al Capab�l�t�es Document and draft Capab�l�ty Development Document.

SFR (System Functional Review) – Ensure funct�onal performance capab�l�t�es are cons�stent w�th cost, schedule, and r�sk constra�nts and system ready to proceed �nto prel�m�nary des�gn.

PDR (Preliminary Design Review) – Ensure system prel�m�nary des�gn and funct�onal/allocated basel�ne are captured �n �tem performance spec�ficat�ons for each configurat�on �tem �n system.

CDR (Critical Design Review) – Determ�ne that system meets stated performance capab�l�t�es, product basel�ne �s captured �n �tem deta�l spec�ficat�on, and system �s ready for fabr�cat�on, demonstrat�on, and test.

PRR (Production Readiness Review) – Ver�fy des�gn �s ready for product�on and adequate product�on plann�ng accompl�shed; system capab�l�t�es are traced to final product�on system.

TRR (Test Readiness Review(s)) – Assess test read�ness and approve test plans.

SvR (System verification Review) (synonymous with Functional Configuration Audit) – Ver�fy configurat�on �tems perform to spec�ficat�on and system �s ready to proceed �nto Low-Rate In�t�al Product�on and Full-Rate Product�on w�th�n cost, schedule, and r�sk constra�nts.

PCA (Physical Configuration Audit) – Ver�fy �tem produced (product basel�ne) matches des�gn documentat�on (e.g., draw�ngs, etc.) and �tem deta�l spec�ficat�on �n the contract.


89

TEChNICAL REvIEW bEST PRACTICES

Techn�cal rev�ews:

• Are a fundamental part of the SE process and serve as a technical assessment product for the program manager

– Should be event-based

– Object�ve entry cr�ter�a need to be defined up front

– Are only as good as who conducts them

– Engagement of Techn�cal Author�ty

– Cha�r �ndependent of program team

– Independent subject matter experts, determ�ned by Cha�r

– Involve ALL STAKEHOLDERS

• Should rev�ew entire program from a technical perspective

– Cost, schedule, and performance

– By ALL STAKEHOLDERS

– Involve all techn�cal products (specs, basel�nes, r�sks, cost est�mates)

• Should result �n program decisions and changes

– Rather than a “check �n the box”

• Taken as a whole ser�es, form a major part (backbone) of the SEP

Easy in principle,difficult in practice.


90

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDSA New Way of Doing business (Acquisition Reform)

(SECDEF Memo of June 29, 1994)

1. Use Performance-Based Spec�ficat�ons

2. Cancel/Convert Manufactur�ng and Management Standards to Performance or Nongovernment Standards (NGSs)

3. Encourage Contractors to Subm�t Alternative Solutions to M�l�tary Standards/Spec�ficat�ons

4. Prohibit Use of M�l�tary Spec�ficat�ons/Standards Except when Authorized by Serv�ce Acqu�s�t�on Execut�ve or Des�gnee

Design/Fab. Require desired Specify exact parts and outcomes or functions, components Specific design to contractor

Processes Few, if any Specify exact processes

Physical Give specifics only for Specify more physicalCharacteristics interfaces, environment, characteristics than or human factors for interfaces, environment, etc.

Interface Detailed interface data do Detailed interface dataRequirements NOT solely make a perf. spec. a detail spec.

Materials Leave specifics to Require specific materials contractor

Test and Evaluation State performance Prescribed testing need; contractor picks process test procedure

PERFORMANCE DETAIL / DESIGN

PERFORMANCE vs. DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS


91

• Program un�que spec�ficat�ons advantages:– Helps avoid dupl�cat�on and �ncons�stenc�es.– Enables good est�mates of necessary work and resources.– Prov�des cons�stent communication among players as people

rotate.– Can be used to prepare test plans.– Can be used a long t�me after the system has been put �nto

operat�on.– Serves as an interface between customers, developers, and

des�gners.• Can act as negot�at�on and reference document for engineering

changes.

MIL-STD-961Standard Performance Spec�ficat�onStandard Des�gn Spec�ficat�on Pro-

gram-Un�que Spec�ficat�ons No waiver required to use

STD PRACTICE

PROGRAM-UNIqUE SPECIFICATIONS

• Defines m�ss�on/techn�cal performance requ�rements. Allocates Requ�rements to funct�onal areas. Defines �nterfaces.

• Defines performance character�st�cs of configurat�on �tems (form, fit, funct�on). Deta�ls des�gn requ�rements only to meet �nterfaces. “DESIGN-TO.”

• Includes “how to” and spec�fic des�gn requ�rements. Usually �ncludes spec�fic processes and procedures. “bUILD-TO.”

• Defines process performed dur�ng fabr�cat�on.

• Defines product�on of raw mater�als or sem�-fabr�cated mater�al used �n fabr�cat�on.

System

(hardware or Software) ItemPerformance

(hardware or Software) Item

Detail

Process

Material

Funct�onal(“System”)

Allocated(“Design-to”)

Product(“build-to”)

Product

Product

Specification Content baseline

Specs


92

cONfIGuRATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING

• The dec�s�ons on

– Which baselines the government should eventually control– The data needed– When that control should be established

… are strateg�c management dec�s�ons that �nvolve

– Acquisition strategies—sources, competition, etc.– Logistics support plans—repair levels, data needs, open systems,

etc.– Technology insertion—stable vs. rapidly moving technologies, etc.

• Government should control the Funct�onal Basel�ne (document system level requ�rements)

• DoD PMOs �ncreas�ngly choose to leave Allocated Basel�nes under contractor control unt�l late �n development. (Documents the Configurat�on Item (CI) level des�gn requ�rements.)

– Promotes contractor design flexibility– Relieves PMO from administrative burdens of managing design

Engineering Change Proposals– Requires effective implementation of Integrated Product and Process Development

• When and �f to control basel�nes �s dependent on support ph�losophy and acqu�s�t�on management strategy.

“A management process for establishing and maintaining consistency of a product’s performance, functional, and physical attributes with its requirements, design, and operational information throughout its life.”

• Identify and document the funct�onal and phys�cal character�st�cs of configurat�on �tems.

• Control changes to configurat�on �tems and the�r related documentat�on.• Record (or Status Accounting in DoD terms) and report �nformat�on

needed to manage configurat�on �tems effect�vely, �nclud�ng the status of proposed changes and �mplementat�on status of approved changes.

• Audit configurat�on �tems to ver�fy conformance to spec�ficat�ons, draw�ngs, �nterface control documents, and other contract requ�rements.

CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENTNongovernment Standard: EIA Standard-649

Also see MIL HNBK 61

– Adopted by DoD on November 22, 1996


93

• The Government PMO:– Ident�fies external �nterfaces– Establ�shes �nterface standards

(basel�nes)– Ma�nta�ns �nterface stab�l�ty

• The contractor:– Manages �nternal �nterfaces– Establ�shes �nterface requ�rements

to �nclude �nternal and external �nterfaces

– Controls �nterfaces to ensure◆Accountab�l�ty◆T�mely d�ssem�nat�on of changes

The Government increasingly chooses to manage interfaces, leaving design details to contractors.

• Ident�fies, documents, and controls all funct�onal and phys�cal character�st�cs

• Interfaces:

– What? ◆Common boundary◆Types: mechan�cal, electr�cal, operat�onal, software◆Funct�onal and phys�cal character�st�cs

– Where?◆W�th�n one contractor’s des�gn◆Among contractor’s �tems and GFE◆Among mult�ple contractors’ �tems◆Among systems

– Controlled by Interface Control Work�ng Group

– Documented �n Interface Control Documents

INTERFACE MANAGEMENTWill it all work together?

INTERFACE CONTROL CONCEPT

?


94

bASIC PURPOSES OF WbS

hOW TO CREATE A WORK bREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

Sys Eng

System

Tra�n�ng Test Mfg

computer sensor

CrewS�mulator

HW

XXXSystemSW

Appl�cat�onSW

d�splays

Group�ng forSpec.

Development

InterfaceManagementEarned Value

Evaluat�on

R�skAssessment

$$$Management

Product Tree

ECPImpact

IPTSetup

SupportCATT

Append�xA

BC

MIL HDBK881

System

Define the Product

Tailor(Supporting Processes)

Create and Refine as Design Matures

SE Process

Note: Oval shapes on per�phery �dent�fy WBS purposes

Tech Rev�ew

Structure


95

Not

e: S

SR

= S

oftw

are

Spe

c�f�c

at�o

n R

ev�e

w. T

he S

SR

�s a

un�

que

sub-

syst

emre

v�ew

hel

d to

ass

ess

SW

req

u�re

men

ts p

r�or

to s

tart

of d

es�g

n.

Sys

tem

Req

u�re

men

tsA

naly

s�s

SR

R

SF

R

SS

R

PD

R CD

R

TR

R

SR

R

SF

R

SS

R

PD

R CD

R

TR

R

Sys

tem

Des

�gn

Sof

twar

eR

equ�

rem

ents

Ana

lys�

s

Sof

twar

eD

es�g

n

Sof

twar

eU

n�t C

od�n

gS

oftw

are

Un�

t Tes

t�ng

SW

Un�

t Int

egra

t�on

and

Tes

t�ng

Sys

tem

Sub

-Sys

tem

SW

Item

(SI)

SW

Item

(SI)

HW

Item

(HI)

SW

Item

(SI)

Sof

twar

eU

n�ts

Sof

twar

eU

n�ts

Sof

twar

eU

n�ts

Sof

twar

e Ite

m

Qua

l�f�c

at�o

n T

est�n

g

HI a

nd S

I In

tegr

at�o

nan

d T

est�n

g

Sub

syst

em

Inte

grat

�on

and

Tes

t�ng

Sys

tem

Q

ual�f

�cat

�on

Tes

t�ng

DT

and

OT

&E

Tes

t�ng

SO

FT

WA

RE

DE

vE

LO

PM

EN

T—

TE

Ch

NIC

AL

RE

vIE

W R

EL

AT

ION

Sh

IPS


96

SO

FT

WA

RE

DE

vE

LO

PM

EN

T—

KE

y L

IFE

Cy

CL

E R

Ev

IEW

FA

CTO

RS

Rev

3.1

In�t�

al S

tage

Des

�gn

& R

ev�e

wA

ct�v

�t�es

Allo

cate

dB

asel

�ne(

s)

Fun

ct�o

nal

Bas

el�n

e

SS

R

CD

RT

RR

PR

RS

VR

PC

AS

oftw

are

Dev

elop

men

t K

ey F

acto

rs•

Are

req

u�re

men

ts tr

acea

ble

to

ope

rat�o

nal m

�ss�

on p

rof�l

es?

• Is

top-

leve

l req

u�re

men

ts a

lloca

t�on

rea

sona

ble?

Are

sof

twar

e an

d h

ardw

are

allo

cat�o

ns r

eal�s

t�c?

• H

as a

sof

twar

e ar

ch�te

ctur

e be

en

est

abl�s

hed?

Is �t

rea

sona

ble?

• H

ave

real

�st�c

com

pute

r re

sour

ce

ut�l

�zat

�on

l�m�ts

bee

n es

tabl

�she

d? •

Hav

e co

mm

un�c

at�o

n an

d �n

terf

ace

req

u�re

men

ts b

een

esta

bl�s

hed?

• H

ave

cr�t�

cal r

equ�

rem

ents

(sa

fety

, s

ecur

�ty, p

r�vac

y) b

een

spec

�f�ed

?

Sof

twar

e D

evel

opm

ent

Key

Fac

tors

• H

ave

softw

are

requ

�rem

ents

bee

n e

stab

l�she

d? A

re th

ey p

r�or�t

�zed

? A

re d

er�v

ed r

equ�

rem

ents

und

erst

ood?

• H

ave

cond

�t�on

s fo

r so

ftwar

e a

ccep

tanc

e be

en e

stab

l�she

d?

• W

hat m

od�f�

cat�o

ns a

re n

eede

d as

a

res

ult o

f pro

toty

pe te

st�n

g?

• W

hat a

re r

euse

& C

OT

S le

vels

? •

Are

per

sonn

el, t

ra�n

�ng,

and

sup

port

�

mpa

cts

unde

rsto

od?

• W

hat e

xcep

t�on

cond

�t�on

s/ca

pac�

ty

l�m

�ts h

ave

been

take

n �n

to a

ccou

nt?

• Is

the

prop

osed

low

er-le

vel b

reak

-out

of s

oftw

are

func

t�ona

l�ty

reas

onab

le/?

• D

o re

sults

of D

eta�

led

Des

�gn

sup

port

sub

sequ

ent c

od�n

g an

d �

mpl

emen

tat�o

n ac

t�v�t�

es?

• A

re �n

terf

aces

spe

c�f�e

d �n

s

uff�c

�ent

det

a�l t

o su

ppor

t cod

�ng

and

�mpl

emen

tat�o

n?

• W

hat s

yste

ms

are

�n p

lace

for

sof

twar

e co

nf�g

urat

�on

man

agem

ent d

ur�n

g S

oftw

are

Sup

port

?

• H

ow w

�ll c

hang

es b

e �n

corp

orat

ed

�nt

o th

e f�e

lded

sof

twar

e?

• D

o re

sults

of s

oftw

are

test

s to

d

ate

ver�f

y pe

rfor

man

ce, r

el�a

b�l�t

y,

saf

ety,

sec

ur�ty

, and

oth

er c

r�t�c

al

req

u�re

men

ts?

Sof

twar

e D

evel

opm

ent

Key

Fac

tors

Inte

rmed

�ate

Sta

geD

es�g

n &

Rev

�ew

Act

�v�t�

es

F�n

al S

tage

Des

�gn

& R

ev�e

wA

ct�v

�t�es

P

rodu

ct B

asel

�ne(

s)

PD

R

SR

RSD

RS

FR


97

CANDIDATE SOFTWARE MEASURES (METRICS)

• Software S�ze• Requ�rements Volat�l�ty• Software Effort/Staffing• Software Progress• Problem/Change Report Status• Rework/Scrap• Computer Resource Ut�l�zat�on• M�lestone Performance• Bu�ld Release Content• Software Complex�ty• Effect of Reuse• Earned Value

Check out the handbooks at the DoD’s Pract�cal System and Software Measures s�te at <www.psmsc.com>.

Software measures should be r�sk- or �ssue-dr�ven and are phase-dependent.

DeskCheck�ng

Walkthroughs

FormalInspect�ons

Jo�ntRev�ews

• Process-dr�ven• Test & �ntegrat�on plann�ng key• Includes qual�f�cat�on test�ng• Software �tem/conf�gurat�on �tem or�ented• Wh�te vs. black box test�ng

• Ineffect�ve• Better than noth�ng• Ind�v�dually done

• May have def�ned procedures• Team or�ented rev�ew• Results may be recorded• Around 40% defect removal

• Use spec�ally tra�ned teams• Formal process• Team att�tude cr�t�cal• R�g�d entry/ex�t cr�ter�a• Bas�s for SW metr�cs• Genes�s for process �mprovement• Around 70% defect removal

• Preparat�on cr�t�cal• Entrance/ex�t cr�ter�a key• Frequently abr�dged• H�gh-level rev�ew• May not be h�gh-leverage, SW-qual�ty event

Spectrum ofQual�ty Eventsfor Software

Computer-BasedTest�ng

Act�v�t�es

Human-BasedQual�ty Act�v�t�es

qUALITy EvENTS FOR SOFTWARE


98

• Adopt cont�nuous r�sk management• Est�mate cost and schedule emp�r�cally• Use software metr�cs to help manage• Track earned value• Track software defects aga�nst software qual�ty targets• Treat people as the most �mportant resource• Use l�fe cycle configurat�on management• Manage and trace requ�rements• Use system-based software des�gn• Ensure data and database �nteroperab�l�ty• Define and control �nterfaces• Des�gn tw�ce, but code once• Carefully assess reuse r�sks and costs• Inspect requ�rements and des�gn• Manage test�ng as a cont�nuous process• Test frequently• Use good systems eng�neer�ng processes

SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT bEST PRACTICES

• Use schedule compress�on to just�fy new technology on a t�me-cr�t�cal project

• Have the government mandate technolog�cal solut�ons• Spec�fy �mplementat�on technology �n the RFP• Use as many “s�lver bullets” as poss�ble• Expect to recover more than 10% schedule sl�p w�thout a reduct�on �n

del�vered funct�onal�ty• Put �tems out of project control on the cr�t�cal path• Plan on ach�ev�ng more than 10% �mprovement from observed past

performance• Bury as much of the project complex�ty as poss�ble �n the software as

opposed to the hardware• Conduct cr�t�cal system eng�neer�ng tasks w�thout software expert�se• Bel�eve that formal rev�ews alone w�ll prov�de an accurate p�cture of

the project• Expect that the product�v�ty of a formal rev�ew �s d�rectly proport�onal

to the number of attendees above five

SOFTWARE ACqUISITION WORST PRACTICES


99

chapter 2LEADERShIP AND MANAGERIAL SKILLS

• More th�ngs that make you go “Hmmm?... ”

“An author�ty �s a person who just happens to know the source.”

“A conservat�ve �s a person who bel�eves noth�ng should be done the first t�me.”

“D�plomacy �s the art of hear�ng all part�es argu�ng �n a d�spute and nodd�ng to all of them w�thout ever agree�ng w�th any of them.”

“The meet�ng ra�sed our confidence that the contractor can actually accompl�sh the task and that �t w�ll occur �n our l�fet�me.”

“Th�s �s the earl�est I’ve been late.”

“The world would be a much better place �f people weren’t allowed to have ch�ldren unt�l they’ve proven they can successfully manage a DoD program.”

“Everyone �s bound to bear pat�ently the results of h�s/her own example.”

“The super�or person �s firm �n the r�ght way, and not merely firm.”


100

MANAGEMENT AND LEADERShIP

ImplementChange Plan

StaffCoord�nate

Mon�tor andControl

Dr�veChange

Set theD�rect�on

Al�gn thePeople

Energ�ze thePeople

Bu�ldRelat�onsh�ps

Coach andMentor

Make Things Happen

Create and Nurture an Environment for Success

Demonstrate Integrity

Do Things RightMANAGEMENT

LEADERShIPDo the Right Things

Program Managers Must Balance Both Roles

Organ�ze


101

Reasons for Empowerment, Delegation, and Coaching

• Allows managers more t�me for manager�al and leadersh�p roles (e.g., long-term plann�ng, coord�nat�ng ongo�ng act�v�t�es, mon�tor�ng and controll�ng act�v�t�es, and prov�d�ng feedback to employees)

• Increases employee capab�l�ty and mot�vat�on• Enhances employee career growth• Improves teamwork• Max�m�zes l�m�ted resources• Pushes respons�b�l�ty and accountab�l�ty further down �n the organ�zat�on

Steps for Empowerment, Delegation, and Coaching

1. Select the task or tasks to be ass�gned2. Select the person or team; evaluate the�r current capab�l�t�es to complete

the task or tasks3. Prov�de tra�n�ng and/or coach�ng, �f necessary, to �mprove the�r

capab�l�t�es4. Sol�c�t �nput from the person or team regard�ng the task or tasks5. Agree on the tasks, object�ves, respons�b�l�ty, author�ty, and deadl�ne6. Prov�de gu�dance, ass�stance, and support, as necessary7. Establ�sh metr�cs to measure progress8. Mon�tor progress9. Prov�de feedback10. Ident�fy lessons learned11. Evaluate performance

EMPOWERMENT, DELEGATION, AND COAChING

EMPOWERMENT

Ass�gn�ng an employee or team respons�b�l�ty and author�ty to take act�ons and make dec�s�ons �n pursu�t of the organ�zat�on’s goals.

DELEGATION

Ass�gn�ng an employee (usually a subord�nate) a spec�fic task or tasks to complete.

COAChING

Prov�d�ng employees w�th the tools, knowledge, and opportun�t�es they need to develop the�r potent�al and �ncrease the�r effect�veness.

NOTE: Some people use “empowerment” and “delegation” interchangeably, while others see a subtle distinction, e.g., delegation often refers to an individual, while empowerment is usually associated with groups or teams. Empowerment usually includes more authority and freedom related to making decisions and taking actions, while delegation is usually more bounded.


102

EMPOWERMENT, DELEGATION, AND COAChING (Cont�nued)

Leaders should ensure the components shown above are present.

CapabilitySknowledge, sk�lls,

exper�ence

Directionorgan�zat�onal values, v�s�on, purpose, goals

Authoritythe r�ght to take act�ons

necessary to meet goals

FreedomSSable to take �n�t�at�ve w�th�n

prescr�bed boundar�es

Trustorgan�zat�onal values, v�s�on, purpose, goals

Resourcesmater�als, fac�l�t�es,

people, money, t�me, etc.

SSInformationaccess to and shar�ng of

essent�al �nformat�on

Responsibilityor ass�gnment to complete a spec�fic act�v�ty or act�v�t�es

Accountabilityass�gnment to complete a spec�fic act�v�ty or act�v�t�es

Supportr�ght tools and

resources to do job

• Active Listening. G�ve your full attention. Focus on the message, not formulat�ng your response to �t. Establ�sh and ma�nta�n eye contact, paraphrase key po�nts, and avo�d mak�ng judgments.

• questioning. Ask quest�ons to promote d�scovery of new knowledge and st�mulate th�nk�ng. Use open quest�ons that requ�re some thought to complete.

• Giving Feedback. One of the most valuable, but least used tools �n commun�cat�on. People are often uncomfortable g�v�ng feedback to others, part�cularly when they bel�eve �t could be perce�ved as negat�ve. Offer factual, spec�fic, but non-judgmental (and unemot�onal) feedback.

• Sharing. Share your exper�ences. Make suggest�ons on overcom�ng d�fficult�es or how to proceed.

COAChING SKILLS


103

GENERIC IPT PROCESS

Identify a Need for a Team—Determine whether the creation of a team is the best method to accomplish the intended purpose.

Staff the Team—Determine what functional disciplines and organizations/activities need to be represented and who the team members will be.

Conduct Team Startup Activities—Conduct activities to get the team started, such as establishing operating agreements, assigning roles and responsibilities, and conducting team training sessions. Activities also include discussing and agreeing on the team’s intended purpose, and developing shared goals, critical success factors, and metrics to measure team progress toward goals. A common output of these activities is the Team Charter. (See page 105.)

Develop a Plan of Action—Take specific action steps or processes for how the team will perform. This includes assigning action items, establishing target dates, determining what resources are needed, etc.

Execute the Plan—Perform the work necessary to accomplish the project goals and produce the team deliverables.

Assessment and Realignment—Conduct periodic assessments of team performance, and use metrics to measure progress toward goals. Make adjustments as necessary.

Conduct Team Closeout Activities – Deliver the final product or service, update program documents, and compile lessons learned.

Identify the Need for an IPT

Staff theTeam

ConductTeam Startup Activities

Develop aPlan of Action

Conduct Team Closeout Activities

Execute the Plan

Assess and Realign


104

FO

RM

UL

A F

OR

EF

FE

CT

IvE

TE

AM

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Dire

ctio

n+

Com

mitm

ent

+E

nerg

y+

Cap

abili

ty+

Em

pow

erm

ent

+E

ffect

ive

Tea

mE

nabl

ers

Per

form

ance

Lea

der

ship

Wha

t’s In

ItF

or T

he C

usto

mer

?F

or M

e?D

AU

PLM

OJT C

oach

ing

Men

torin

g

Ind

ivid

ual

Fac

tors

(Exa

mpl

es)

•P

erso

nal S

tand

ards

•P

erso

nal I

nter

ests

•P

erso

nal V

alue

s•

Car

eer

Goa

ls

•W

ork

Eth

ic•

Sec

urity

•W

elfa

re

*

Cu

sto

mer

Fac

tors

(Exa

mpl

es)

•Im

prov

ed C

apab

ility

•Im

prov

ed R

eadi

ness

•R

educ

ed O

&M

Cos

ts

•M

oral

e

*Effe

ctiv

e T

eam

Ena

bler

s•

Com

mun

icat

ion

•C

olla

bora

tion

•C

ontr

ibut

ion

•T

rust

OJT

=O

n-t

he-J

ob T

rain

ing

DA

U=

Def

ense

Acq

uisi

tion

Uni

vers

ityP

LM=

Per

form

ance

Lea

rnin

g M

odel

Wha

t’s In

It


105

TEAM ChARTER

Team Charter. A document descr�b�ng key aspects of why a team �s establ�shed, what �s expected of �t, and what author�ty and respons�b�l-�ty �t has. The person or ent�ty creat�ng (�.e., “charter�ng” or author�z-�ng) the team normally prov�des some general gu�dance; however, the team may benefit cons�derably by develop�ng the “meat and potatoes” of the charter, result�ng �n �ncreased comm�tment of all team members. Examples of top�cs that may be �ncluded �n a charter follow:

• Purpose. Descr�be why the team ex�sts and what �t �s �ntended to accompl�sh.

• Goals/objectives. L�st spec�fic, measurable �tems the team �s focused on ach�ev�ng to help �t exceed �ts customer’s expectat�ons.

• Critical success factors. L�st the critical actions the team must perform to ensure �t �s successful �n fulfill�ng �ts purpose.

• End products/deliverables. Descr�be the �tem(s) the team �s respons�ble for del�ver�ng.

• Authority and accountability. Descr�be what team members are allowed/not allowed to do w�thout author�zat�on from a h�gher level. Descr�be what they are respons�ble for complet�ng.

• Metrics. L�st measures of progress for cr�t�cal success factors and goals/object�ves.

• Program schedule. L�st key program/team m�lestones and events.• Team membership. L�st team members and contact �nformat�on.• Roles and responsibilities. L�st spec�fic ass�gnments for �mprov�ng

team performance (e.g., t�me keeper, recorder or scr�be, scheduler, etc.). Also, l�st spec�fic tasks and/or act�on �tems the team �s ass�gned to complete.

• Resources required. Descr�be the fund�ng, mater�als, equ�pment, support, etc., the team needs to complete �ts m�ss�on.

• Program organizational structure. Define where the team fits w�th�n the overall program office structure.

• Program organizational structure Descr�be or dep�ct where the team fits �n the overall program office structure.

• Operating agreements/ground rules. L�st agreed-upon gu�del�nes descr�b�ng how team members w�ll �nteract, what processes they w�ll use, and what they expect of one another.

• Customers, suppliers, stakeholders. L�st key �nd�v�duals, teams, and organ�zat�ons �nvolved w�th the team’s output.


106

TyPIcAL WORkING GROuPS

• Log�st�cs Support Management Team (LSMT)• Test and Evaluat�on Work�ng Group (TEWG)• Computer Resources Work�ng Group (CRWG)• Requ�rements Interface Work�ng Group• Interface Control Work�ng Group (ICWG)• Technology Assessment Work�ng Group• “T�ger” Team• Process Act�on Team (PAT)• Integrated Product and Process Teams (IPPTs)

RECOGNIZE.WHICH. PHASE. OF.TEAM. DEVELOPMENT.YOU. ARE.IN. AND.TAKE. POSITIVE. ACTION.TO.WORK.THROUGH.

WORKING GROUPS

TEAM DEVELOPMENT WHEEL

PerformingCreat�veTrust�ngEffect�veConfident

FormingM�ll�ngConfus�onPol�tePurposeless

NormingCohes�onPurposeFeedbackRelevancy

StormingConfl�ctFrustrat�onRes�stanceCl�ques

Note: There can be an add�t�onal phase—“Adjourn�ng”—when the team d�sbands, says good bye, and reflects on lessons learned. Th�s �s a “celebrat�on” phase.

Th�s d�agram �s based on Dr. Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 study of small groups, wh�ch �dent�fied the trad�t�onal five phases exper�enced by project work teams.


107

Disadvantages

• Takes more t�me• Hard to term�nate• Paralys�s by analys�s

MANAGEMENT TRADEOffS fOR WORkING GROuPS

Advantages

• More �deas and solut�ons• Consensus pos�t�ons• Strong comm�tments

TEAM PERFORMANCE MODEL

• Decision Making• Resolving Issues• Communicating• Planning• Executing• Controlling

• Customer Focus• Leadership• values• vision• Purpose• Goals and Objectives• Critical Success Factors

• Awareness• Roles and Responsibilities• Operating Agreements• Team Accountability• Empowerment• Trust• Five Cs• Team Identity• Self-Assessment

CommunicationCommitmentCooperationContributionCaring

Team Processes

Team Principles

Team Dynamics

Team foundation

ThinkingLearning

Charter

• Diversity• Conflict• Comfort zones• Communications• Focus• Organizational Climate• Trends


108

— Don’t try to force consensus. Listen to other positions and reactions before expressing your own point.

— No winners or losers. Don’t assume that someone must “win” and someone must “lose” if the discussion reaches a stalemate.

— Don’t avoid conflict. Don’t change your mind simply to reach agreement and maintain harmony.

— Avoid majority votes, compromises, or horse trading to reach an agreement.

— It’s OK to disagree. Differences of opinion are natural and expected.

Note: Groupthink. A phenomenon—to be avoided—where team members become so concerned about preventing disagreement or conflict that they abandon critical thinking to simply go along with whatever consensus seems to be emerging.

TEAM DECISION MAKING

Good team decision making is a critical element of team performance. It involves examining the decision context (e.g., current program environment, assumptions, con-straints, pressures, stakeholder inputs, etc.), determining who needs to be involved in the decision, verifying how much time is available to make the decision, and deciding on the decision-making process.

Generally Accepted Team Decision-Making Methods• Unilateral. One person makes the decision, usually the team leader. Variations:

— Directive or Authoritative. The person making the decision does so primarily using his/her knowledge, experience, and program guidelines/constraints, but is also influenced by his/her own reasons and motives.

— Consultative. The person making the decision may seek input from other team members, but ultimately, he/she still makes the decision on his/her own.

• Majority. Each team member votes, and the majority decides the course of action.• Consensus. Team members may not completely agree with the most preferred

approach, but they have the opportunity to express their point of view, understand the logic behind the decision, and support it. Consensus is generally the preferred decision-making method for most team issues, especially when the commitment of all team members is important.

Guidelines for Achieving Consensus:


109

EFFECTIvE MEETINGS

Prior To the Meeting

• Determ�ne and clar�fy the purpose for the meet�ng

• Determ�ne expected meet�ng outcomes

• Ident�fy meet�ng attendees— Subject matter experts— Key dec�s�on makers— People d�rectly affected by potent�al

dec�s�ons/outcomes

• Determ�ne meet�ng format— Face-to-face, v�rtual teleconference,

teleconference, Web tool

• Determ�ne date/t�me/locat�on

• Develop and d�str�bute meet�ng agenda (at least 24 hours pr�or)— Spec�fic top�cs, presenter, est�mated t�me, des�red outcome

• Meet�ng log�st�cs— Room setup, IT support needed

During the Meeting

• Open�ng— Start on t�me— Rev�ew agenda— Set or rev�ew ground rules— Clar�fy roles

• Conduct�ng— Address one �tem at a t�me— Fac�l�tate d�scuss�ons— Encourage open commun�cat�on and �nformat�on shar�ng— Ma�nta�n focus and pace— Spec�fy top�cs, presenter, amount of t�me devoted to �tem

• Clos�ng— Summar�ze agreements and dec�s�ons— Rev�ew act�on �tems— Ask for agenda �tems for the next meet�ng— Set the date / t�me of the next meet�ng

After the Meeting

Rev�ew and publ�sh m�nutes


110

DECISION bRIEFING

Elements of a Decision briefing

• Outl�ne—Agenda

• Purpose of Br�efing/Issue(s)

• Background

• Assumpt�ons

• Alternat�ves Ident�fied

• Evaluat�on Cr�ter�a/Process

• Analys�s of Ident�fied Alternat�ves

• Recommended Alternat�ve

• Rat�onale for Recommendat�on

• Recommended Implementat�on Plan

• Key R�sks for Recommended Implementat�on Plan

What to Expect from the Person/People Receiving the briefing

• Challenges to assumpt�ons, defin�t�ons, methodology

• Quest�ons concern�ng compl�ance w�th or

changes to pol�cy

• Sens�t�v�ty of the �ssue and/or

recommended alternat�ve to change

• Quest�ons or challenges to analys�s,

tradeoffs, rat�onale for recommendat�ons, and �mplementat�on plan

• Quest�ons concern�ng r�sks for the recommended �mplementat�on

plan

NOTE: Questions may be open-ended or closed (e.g., yes/no answers)


111

Messages pass through filters; first through the filter of the person send�ng the message, and then through the filter of the rece�ver. F�lters somet�mes act to enhance the message, and at other t�mes, they can be barr�ers. F�lters cons�st of factors such as personal�ty, tone of vo�ce, body language, fac�al express�ons, accents, percept�ons, att�tudes, emot�ons, knowledge, funct�onal background, the med�um of com-mun�cat�on used (verbal, wr�tten, e-ma�l, etc.) and much more. Each person’s filter �s d�fferent, somet�mes result�ng �n the rece�ver �nterpret-�ng the message d�fferently than the sender �ntended.

One of the most �mportant commun�cat�ons sk�lls (and often a barr�er to effect�ve commun�cat�ons) �s l�sten�ng. Learn�ng to “act�vely l�sten” can �ncrease commun�cat�ons effect�veness s�gn�ficantly

Act�ve l�sten�ng �nvolves:

• Establ�sh�ng and ma�nta�n�ng eye contact.• Focus�ng on what �s be�ng commun�cated.• Not mak�ng judgments about the sender’s

�nformat�on.• Not formulat�ng your reply before the sender has

fin�shed send�ng h�s/her message.• Paraphras�ng key po�nts the sender makes (when the sender

pauses—don’t �nterrupt to paraphrase what’s be�ng commun�cated).

Effect�ve program management requ�res the r�ght people to get the r�ght �nformat�on at the r�ght t�me. Program commun�cat�ons must take place vert�cally (up and down), hor�zontally, and externally.

Program Office

COMMUNICATIONS

Message

Feedback

Sender Receiver

Filter

Filter


112

COMMUNICATIONS (Cont�nued)

Communications Plan

One way to ensure the right people get the right information at the right times is to develop a program (and/or team) communications plan. The plan may include:

• Key entities (program management leadership, IPTs, customer, contractor(s), and key stakeholders).

• What information they should provide.

• What information they should receive.

• How it is provided/received.

• Format, frequency/interval, and other factors considered important for the particular program/situation.

• Types of meetings, such as regular status meetings and program management reviews.

• Reports (e.g., status reports, cost/sched perf reports, action item lists).

• Issues and the policy for elevating them to higher levels.

• Other forms of communication, and how and by whom they are used.

Interpersonal Negotiation Techniques

Purpose: Resolv�ng confl�cts

Objective: Seek to sat�sfy both part�es’ �nterests

Methodology:— Acknowledge the conflict and its effect on performance.— Separate people and emotions from the issue.— Present issues in terms of the underlying interests or

requirements, i.e., the most important aspects of what you need to achieve.

— LISTEN to the other party’s interests/requirements; be able to restate their interests to their satisfaction (indicating you understand what interests they are trying to achieve).

— Agree on what the issue is.— Look for common goals and common interests.— Identify as many possible alternatives to resolve the issue and satisfy the interests of

both parties.— Resist the urge to compromise (“meet in the middle”). Instead, look at the issue from

different perspectives: Challenge assumptions and constraints.— Agree on the alternative that best meets both parties’ interests.— Obtain the commitment of all members of both parties on what will be done to implement

the solution.


113

DIREcTIVE• G�ve adv�ce• Evaluate• Mot�vate• Expla�n• Reassure

NONDIREcTIVE• Don’t d�splay author�ty• L�sten carefully• Don’t adv�se• Facts only; no op�n�ons• Employee find solut�on

Advantages• Effect�ve w�th �nexper�enced personnel• Qu�ck• Take charge att�tude

Advantages• Develops comm�tment• Good tra�n�ng• Employee respons�ble• Supports delegat�on

Disadvantages• Perce�ved �nsult�ng• Does not support delegat�on• Manager keeps respons�b�l�ty

Disadvantages• Takes t�me• Sk�ll/pat�ence requ�red• Ineffect�ve w�th �nexper�enced personnel

cOuNSELING PROcESS

1. Set up �nterv�ew—pr�vate, confident�al, unhurr�ed2. Encourage d�scuss�on—open quest�ons, act�ve l�sten�ng3. Help employee th�nk �t through—deal w�th facts, no op�n�ons or own v�ews4. Let employee find the solut�on—h�s/her solut�on to the problem

COUNSELING

COMMUNICATIONS (Cont�nued)Counseling


114

TIME MANAGEMENT

1. L�st all the tasks you have to complete.

2. Pr�or�t�ze the tasks based on urgency and �mportance of complet�on us�ng the format shown below.

3. Do Pr�or�ty 1 tasks first. If poss�ble delegate some of them.4. The key to effect�ve t�me management �s to schedule t�me to work on

small p�eces of Pr�or�ty 2 tasks. — If not completed early, they w�ll eventually become Pr�or�ty 1 tasks.

5. Reass�gn or delegate Pr�or�ty 3 tasks �f poss�ble.— A common tendency �s focus�ng on Pr�or�ty 3 tasks (because of the�r

urgency) �nstead of Pr�or�ty 2 tasks (because of the�r �mportance).

6. Pr�or�ty 4 tasks are t�me wasters/busy work and should be avo�ded.

Priority 1 Important Priority 2 Important Urgent Not Urgent

Priority 3 Urgent Priority 4 Not Urgent Not Important Not Important

Common Time robbers Avoidance Techniques

• Incoming telephone call ] Screen for importance ] Allow voice mail to pick up the call ] Limit length of calls (e.g., 2 min.)

• Outgoing telephone calls ] Do as many at one time as possible ] Itemize topics before calling ] Stick to the topic; don’t socialize

• Unscheduled visitors ] Screen for importance ] Do not invite visitor into your office ] Remain standing ] Schedule a time for visitor to return

• Improper delegation ] Re-delegate ] Make a record of delegated tasks ] Assign deadlines

• Poorly conducted meetings ] Have a pre-published agenda ] Stay focused on subject ] Use a time keeper/gate keeper


115

MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TEChNIqUES

1. Activity-based Management (AbM). Uses deta�led econom�c analyses of �mportant bus�ness act�v�t�es to �mprove strateg�c and operat�onal dec�s�ons. ABM �ncreases the accuracy of cost �nformat�on by more prec�sely l�nk�ng overhead and other �nd�rect costs to products or customer segments. Trad�t�onal account�ng systems d�str�bute �nd�rect costs us�ng bases such as d�rect labor hours, mach�ne hours, or mater�al dollars. ABM tracks overhead and other �nd�rect costs by act�v�ty, wh�ch can then be traced to products or customers.

2. balanced Scorecard. Defines what management means by “performance” and measures whether management �s ach�ev�ng des�red results. The Balanced Scorecard translates m�ss�on and v�s�on statements �nto a comprehens�ve set of object�ves and performance measures that can be quant�fied and appra�sed. These measures typ�cally �nclude: financ�al, customer value, �nternal bus�ness process, learn�ng and growth, and employee performance.

3. Cycle Time Reduction. Decreases the t�me �t takes a company or program to perform key act�v�t�es throughout �ts value cha�n. Cycle T�me Reduct�on uses analyt�c techn�ques to m�n�m�ze wa�t�ng t�me, el�m�nate act�v�t�es that do not add value, �ncrease parallel processes, and speed up dec�s�on processes w�th�n an organ�zat�on. T�me-based strateg�es often emphas�ze flex�ble manufactur�ng, rap�d response, and �nnovat�on �n order to attract the most profitable customers.

4. Groupware. Refers to a broad range of technolog�es that allow people �n organ�zat�ons to work together through computer networks. These products range from soph�st�cated electron�c ma�l packages to appl�cat�ons that l�nk offices and employees. Organ�zat�ons use such technology-a�ded commun�cat�ons to better �nform strateg�c and financ�al dec�s�ons and to more effect�vely and econom�cally br�ng together work�ng groups. (DAU has a Groupware capab�l�ty �n �ts Management Dec�s�on Center, wh�ch �s used for management dec�s�on mak�ng by offices and agenc�es throughout DoD.)


116

MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TEChNIqUES(Cont�nued)

5. Outsourcing. Occurs when a company or Government agency uses th�rd part�es to perform non-core bus�ness act�v�t�es. Contract�ng th�rd part�es enables a company or agency to focus �ts efforts on �ts core competenc�es. Many compan�es find that outsourc�ng reduces cost and �mproves performance of the act�v�ty. Th�rd part�es that spec�al�ze �n an act�v�ty are l�kely to be lower cost and more effect�ve, g�ven the�r scale. Through outsourc�ng, a company or agency can access the state of the art �n all of �ts bus�ness act�v�t�es w�thout hav�ng to master each one �nternally.

6. business Process Reengineering. Involves the fundamental redes�gn of core bus�ness processes to ach�eve s�gn�ficant �mprovements �n product�v�ty, cycle t�mes, and qual�ty. In Bus�ness Process Reeng�neer�ng, compan�es start w�th a blank sheet of paper and reth�nk ex�st�ng processes to del�ver more value to the customer. They typ�cally adopt a new value system that places �ncreased emphas�s on customer needs. Compan�es and/or Government agenc�es reduce organ�zat�onal layers and el�m�nate unproduct�ve act�v�t�es �n two key areas. F�rst, they redes�gn funct�onal organ�zat�ons �nto cross-funct�onal teams. Second, they use technology to �mprove data d�ssem�nat�on and dec�s�on mak�ng.

7. Strategic Planning. Is a comprehens�ve process for determ�n�ng what a commerc�al bus�ness or Government agency should become and how �t can best ach�eve that goal. It appra�ses the full potent�al of a bus�ness and expl�c�tly l�nks the bus�ness object�ves to the act�ons and resources requ�red to ach�eve them. Strateg�c Plann�ng offers a systemat�c process to ask and answer the most cr�t�cal quest�ons confront�ng a management team—espec�ally large, �rrevocable resource comm�tment quest�ons.


117

ChAPTER 3PRObLEM-SOLvING TOOLS

bRAINSTORMING

PURPOSE: To st�mulate the free flow of �deas.

METhOD: Group members take turns generat�ng �deas. One �dea st�mulates another and then another. Freewheel�ng of �deas �s encour-aged. Bra�nstorm�ng stops when all group members run out of �deas. The next page l�sts quest�ons that may suggest new �deas for you.

GROUND RULES:

Put prejudgment aside. Remember, all �deas can be thought of as starters.

No criticism allowed. Th�s �s not the t�me to judge an �dea. Don’t cr�t�c�ze other �deas no matter how r�d�culous they may seem. The �deas can be d�scussed �n deta�l later; at th�s t�me, the objec-t�ve �s to generate more �deas.

Welcome free-wheeling or blue-skying. Let those w�ld �deas come out—otherw�se you may conceal your creat�ve process. The �mpract�cal �deas may tr�gger other �deas that are poss�ble to use.

Strive for quantity, not quality. The more �deas brought out, the better the chance of a great solut�on.

combine and rearrange ideas. S�ngle �deas aren’t the only way to make a suggest�on. You can make add�t�ons or comb�nat�ons of prev�ously suggested �deas to create st�ll better �deas.

Record all ideas exactly as expressed. Th�s keeps the m�nd free of remember�ng what was sa�d and allows you to bu�ld on prev�ous �deas.


118

bRAINSTORMING(Cont�nued)

Why does it work?

Some of the reasons why bra�nstorm�ng enhances a group’s creat�v�ty are that �t:

• Increases �nvolvement and part�c�pat�on.

• Produces the most �deas �n the shortest t�me.

• Reduces the need to g�ve the “r�ght” answer.

• Frees up the group; allows the members to have fun and �s �nterest�ng.

• Reduces the poss�b�l�ty of negat�ve th�nk�ng.

qUESTIONS TO STIMULATE yOUR bRAIN CELLS:

1. Can we use th�s �dea elsewhere? As �s? W�th changes?

2. If we change �t, �s there anyth�ng else l�ke �t? Any related �ssues?

3. Mod�fy? Change? Rearrange? Mean�ng, color, mot�on, sound, odor, taste, form, shape, layout, etc.?

4. Magn�fy? Add what? More, stronger, larger, newer?

5. M�n�m�ze? Subtract what? El�m�nate, smaller, l�ghter, slower, spl�t?

6. Subst�tute? Who, what, when, where?

7. Reverse? Oppos�te, backwards, ups�de down, �ns�de out?


119

FORCE FIELD ANALySIS

A Force F�eld Analys�s �llustrates the relat�onsh�p and s�gn�ficance of factors that may �nfluence the problem or goal. Th�s analys�s helps us better understand dr�v�ng and restra�n�ng forces.

used for making decisions, fORcE fIELD ANALySIS can help:• Ident�fy real�st�c �mprovement opportun�t�es;• Develop systemat�c act�on plan for problem resolut�on; and• Create cr�ter�a for evaluat�ng effect�veness of �mprovement act�ons.

CAUSE-AND-EFFECT DIAGRAM

The cause-and-effect d�agram �s a graph�cal �llustrat�on of the relat�onsh�p between a problem or goal (the effect) and �ts potent�al contr�butors (the causes). Somet�mes called the “fishbone” or Ish�kawa d�agram.

used for analyzing problems, a cAuSE-AND-EffEcT DIAGRAM can help:

• Determ�ne root causes of a g�ven effect; and• Ident�fy areas where there �s a lack of data.

GOAL: Stop Smoking

+ Driving Forces

Poor health

burned Clothing

Poor Example

Cost

Impact on Others

Restraining Forces –

habit

Addiction

Taste

Advertisements

Stubborn

ENvIRONMENT MAChINEPEOPLE

POORPhOTOCOPy

qUALITy

METhODS MATERIALS

OriginalSettings

Pencil hardness

Drying Time

bad Paper handling

PoorMaintenance

bad Settings

Contamination

Paper Alignment

hands Dirty

bad Originalshumidity

Operating hours

Sharpness

Lamp Dirty

Speed

Roll Condition

Not Clean-ing-up

Not Level

Poor quality

Poor Storage

Copy Paper

Writing Pressure


120

SCATTER DIAGRAM

A scatter d�agram dep�cts the correlat�on between two var�ables (X and Y).

used for data analysis, a ScATTER DIAGRAM can help:

• Confirm a hypothes�s that two var�ables are related; and

• Prov�de both v�sual and stat�st�cal means to test the strength of a potent�al relat�onsh�p.

hISTOGRAM

The h�stogram chart d�splays the d�str�but�on of a measurable charac-ter�st�c (for example: we�ght, length, speed, etc.). A h�stogram shows what the var�ab�l�ty of the data �s �n a graph�cal or p�ctor�al manner.

used for data analysis, a HISTOGRAM can help:

• Present a p�cture of how the process �s operat�ng;

• Compare actual process measurements w�th an expected d�str�but�on;

• Observe patterns �n the data; and

• Invest�gate process stab�l�ty.

fREquENcy

MEASuRABLE cHARAcTERISTIcS

X

y


121

SURvEyS

Surveys are used to collect data from a var�able number of �tems or people for a comparat�ve study. They are used when a new project �s planned to prove the need and the demand of the customer.

Surveys can be used anywhere �n the organ�zat�on to find out spec�fic �nformat�on that �s necessary to make �mprovements �n a process.

Surveys:

• Are an �nexpens�ve way to test a system or product• Can be used w�th a large number of people or a small group• Can g�ve you an overall v�ew, determ�ned by the quest�ons you ask• Show �f an organ�zat�on �s meet�ng �ts qual�ty goals• Help �dent�fy sat�sfied and d�ssat�sfied customers or employees

Survey Process

1. Determ�ne the group to be stud�ed. 2. Determ�ne what quest�ons w�ll be asked.

Note: Tra�n your data collectors thoroughly. Everyone must know how to ask the quest�ons, whom to approach, and how to approach them.

3. Comp�le your results �n chart form us�ng a Pareto chart (see page 126), h�stogram, and other tools that w�ll g�ve you clar�ficat�on.

4. Use the compounded data to form a base for �mprovement. 5. Cont�nue to take data to mon�tor �mprovements, and make sure

the �mprovements you have made are work�ng.

Caution!

• Data must be collected honestly and cons�stently.

• An untra�ned collector can skew the data to reflect personal b�ases.

• A poor, �ncons�stent survey w�ll g�ve you �nval�d data.

• Make sure there �s enough t�me allowed for the collect�ng process.

bRAINSTORMING SURvEy


122

AFFINITy DIAGRAM

An affin�ty d�agram �s a techn�que for organ�z�ng verbal �nformat�on �nto a v�sual pattern. An affin�ty d�agram starts w�th spec�fic �deas and helps you work toward broad categor�es. Th�s �s the oppos�te of a cause-and-effect d�agram, wh�ch starts w�th the broad causes and works toward spec�fics. You can use e�ther techn�que to explore all aspects of an �ssue.

Affinity diagrams can help you:

• Organ�ze and g�ve structure to a l�st of factors that contr�bute to a problem; and

• Ident�fy key areas where �mprovement �s most needed.

how to do it:

1. Identify the problem. Wr�te the problem or �ssue on a wh�te-board or fl�p chart.

2. Generate ideas. Use an �dea-generat�on techn�que to �dent�fy all facets of the problem. Use �ndex cards or Post-�t® notes to record the �deas.

3. cluster your ideas (on cards or paper) into related groups. Use quest�ons l�ke “Wh�ch other �deas are s�m�lar?” and “Is th�s �dea somehow connected to any others?” to help group the �deas together.

4. create affinity cards. For each group, create an affin�ty card, a card that has a short statement descr�b�ng the ent�re group of �deas.

5. cluster related affinity cards. Put all of the �nd�v�dual �deas �n a group under the�r affin�ty card. Now try to group the affin�ty cards under even broader groups. You can cont�nue to group the cards unt�l your defin�t�on of “group” becomes too broad to have any mean�ng.

6. create an affinity diagram. Lay out all of the �deas and affin�ty cards on a s�ngle p�ece of paper or a blackboard. Draw outl�nes of the groups w�th the affin�ty cards at the top of each group. The result�ng h�erarch�cal structure w�ll g�ve you valuable �ns�ght �nto the problem.


123

Environment

EquipmentErgonomics

Training

Original Document

No Definition of quality

No�seL�ght�ngDesk He�ghtCha�r He�ghtComfort

Handwr�t�ngGrammarPunctuat�onSpell�ng

Draft CopyF�nal CopyD�str�but�onFont

ComputersPr�ntersTypewr�ters

Typ�ng Sk�llEd�t�ng Sk�llComputer Sk�llProofread�ng Sk�ll

No MeasurementNo Feedback

Techn�cal Jargon Slang

Affinity Diagram

Interrupt�ons

UnreasonableDeadl�nes

T�me of Day

Typographical Errors

Author Skill Requirements

AFFINITy DIAGRAM (Example)

A publ�cat�on team wanted to reduce the number of typograph�cal errors �n the�r program’s documentat�on. As part of a first step, they conducted a bra�nstorm�ng sess�on that produced the follow�ng l�st of factors that �nfluenced errors.

Computers Proofread�ng Sk�llUnreasonable Deadl�nes L�ght�ng Cha�r He�ght Desk He�ght Techn�cal Jargon Handwr�t�ng Slang

Spell�ngDraft Copy D�str�but�on F�nal Copy Computer Sk�ll No MeasurementsNo FeedbackPr�ntersNo�se

Typewr�tersComfortT�me of DayInterrupt�onsGrammarPunctuat�onFontEd�t�ng Sk�llTyp�ng Sk�ll

The follow�ng affin�ty d�agram helped them to focus on areas for further analys�s.


124

PAIRWISE RANKING

Pa�rw�se rank�ng �s a structured method for rank�ng a small l�st of �tems �n pr�or�ty order.

Pairwise Ranking can help you:• Pr�or�t�ze a small l�st; and• Make dec�s�ons �n a consensus-or�ented manner.

how to do it:

2. Rank each pair. For each pa�r, have the group (us�ng a consen-sus-or�ented d�scuss�on) determ�ne wh�ch of the two �deas �s preferred. Then, for each pa�r, wr�te the number of the preferable �dea �n the appropr�ate box. Repeat th�s process unt�l the matr�x �s filled.

1

2 2

3

4

2

3

4

5

1 and 2 compared2 is better

1

2 2

1 3

4

2

3

4

5


1

2 2

1 2 3

1 2 3 4

5 5 5 5

2

3

4

5


...and so on until...

1

2

3

4

2

3

4

5

1. Construct a pairwise matrix. Each box �n the matr�x represents the �ntersect�on (or pa�r�ng) of two �tems. If your l�st has five �tems, the pa�rw�se matr�x would look l�ke th�s, w�th the top box represent�ng �dea 1 pa�red w�th �dea 2.


125

Alternative 5 ranks 1st overall

Alternative 5 appears 4 times in the matrix

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Count 2 3 1 0 4

Rank

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Count 2 3 1 0 4

Rank 3rd 2nd 4th 5th 1st

PAIRWISE RANKING (Example)

A program team was asked to recommend a s�te for test�ng a un�que por-t�on of a system. A feas�b�l�ty study produced a l�st of s�x poss�ble locat�ons. The team then used pa�rw�se rank�ng to determ�ne that Nell�s AFB was best su�ted for th�s part�cular test.

1. Fort Huachuca 4. Nell�s AFB 2. Edwards AFB 5. Egl�n AFB 3. K�rtland AFB 6. Hanscom AFB

1

2 2

1 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 4 5

1 6 6 4 5

2

3456

3. Count the number of t�mes each alternat�ve appears �n the matr�x.

4. Rank all items. Rank the alternat�ves by the total number of t�mes they appear �n the matr�x. To break a t�e (where two �deas appear the same number of t�mes), look at the box �n wh�ch those two �deas are compared. The �dea appear�ng �n that box rece�ves the h�gher rank�ng.

Site

Count

Rank

1

2

3rd

2

1

6th

3

1

5th

5

4

2nd

6

2

4th

4

5

1st


126

PARETO ChART

A bar chart that arranges contr�but�ng factors/causes to a problem �n order w�th respect to the�r degree of contr�but�on to the problem.

Used for analyz�ng problems, a Pareto chart can help:

• Select �mprovement opportun�t�es;• Ident�fy root causes w�th greatest �mpact from a cause and effect

d�agram;• Check results of �mprovement efforts by compar�ng Pareto charts

before and after act�on �s taken.

Customer Complaints (Food Service)

PoorService

Cost Quantity Taste Other

CAUSES

%

CONTrIBUTION

40

30

20

10


127

bENChMARKING

Benchmark�ng �s the process of measur�ng products, serv�ces, and pract�ces aga�nst the toughest compet�tors or those known as leaders �n the�r field. Benchmark�ng can help you:• Understand how you compare w�th s�m�lar organ�zat�ons; and• Ident�fy areas for process �mprovement.

HOW TO DO IT:Identify the process to be benchmarked. Select a process (as op-posed to a product) that �s �mportant to both your organ�zat�on and your customers. Be sure the process �n your organ�zat�on �s s�m�lar to, and measured in the same manner as the one to wh�ch �t’s be�ng compared.

Study other organizations. Develop a l�st of organ�zat�ons w�th comparable products and serv�ces. Determ�ne what spec�fic pro-cesses the organ�zat�on performs. Based on th�s �nformat�on, rank the organ�zat�ons from best to worst.

compare and evaluate. Compare your process to the best and worst cases and l�st the �mportant d�fferences. These d�fferences can suggest potent�al �mprovements to your process.

Note: Benchmark�ng �s not repl�cat�ng a process from an organ�zat�on that excels (unless your goal �s to be 2nd best). It is study�ng the process, clearly understand�ng the theory beh�nd the process, and then restudy�ng your own process to determ�ne �mprovements.

BENcHMARkING EXAMPLE:Us�ng �nputs the�r customers pro-v�ded, the execut�ve leaders at AF Product D�v�s�on B dec�ded that the�r source select�on process needed �mprovement. As part of the �n�t�al analys�s, they wanted to see how the�r process compared w�th others. They determ�ned that the average number of days requ�red for source select�on was an �mportant process measure.

As a result of th�s analys�s, representat�ves v�s�ted AF Product D�v�s�on A and Navy D�v�s�on B and stud�ed the�r source select�on procedures.

Cashreceived

Accountsreceivable

Sale(DD 250) Finished goods

inventory

Raw materialinventory

Contractaward

Cashdisbursed

Cashdisbursed

Wagespayable

Work in processinventory

Accountspayable


128

FLOWChARTING

A flowchart �s a graph�c representat�on of the steps of a process. Flow-charts help us understand the process by mapp�ng out the steps �n as much or as l�ttle deta�l as needed.

Enlisted Accessions and Training

used for analyzing a process, a fLOWcHART can help:

• Understand the ex�st�ng process;• Locate �mprovement areas �n a process;• Document changes to a process;• Show relat�onsh�ps between d�fferent steps �n a process; and• Ident�fy cr�t�cal stages of a process.

There are standard flowchart symbols. When you are develop�ng a flowchart, espec�ally �n a group env�ronment, the goal �s to chart the process. Don’t waste t�me debat�ng wh�ch shape a symbol should be. A flowchart that doesn’t use the standard symbols can be just as useful as a chart that does use them.

fIrST DUTYASSIGNMENT

HASPrIOr

SErVICE

rECrUITING

DISCHArGED

YES ASSIGNEDTO A

SPECIALTY

rEQUIrESTrAINING

TECHTrAINING

fAILS

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

rETAIN

ENTErSBASIC

TrAINING

PASSES


129

STANDARD FLOWChART SyMbOLS

DEPLOyMENT FLOWChARTS

A deployment flowchart shows the process flow and the work groups �nvolved �n each step. It prov�des a graph�c representat�on of a g�ven process or system work groups, or �nd�v�duals respons�ble for each act�v�ty.

A deployment flowchart �s used anyt�me �nd�v�duals or groups need to analyze a process �n order to �mprove a system.

This Symbol... Represents...

Start/Stop

Decision Point

Activity

Document

Connector (to another page or part of the diagram)

Some Examples:

Receive Trouble Report

Machine operable

Approve/ DisapproveAccept/Rejectyes/NoPass/Fail

Drop off travel voucher

Open access panel

Fill out trouble report

A

b


130

Deployment flowcharts are used for var�ous funct�ons such as tra�n�ng agenda, da�ly schedule, meet�ng analys�s, emergency procedures, pur-chas�ng process, commun�cat�on procedures, ma�ntenance process, etc.

Deployment Flowcharts:

• Ident�fy �nvolvement �n a process, as �t relates to the whole process.• Define work processes, and �dent�fy ex�st�ng loops through people or

departments.• V�sual�ze a process or system.

DEPLOyMENT FLOWChARTS (cont�nued)

Time correlation if applicable

Process Identification

Cast of Characters

Task box

Circle denotes added support

Meeting

Decision DiamondDecision Line

Shadow box means more information on another flow chartReport

EndSource: Dr. Myron Tr�bus Deployment Flow Chart�ng Qual�ty & Product�v�ty, Inc., Los Angeles, CA 90024

Deployment Process

1. Select a process or system to analyze. 2. Ident�fy the cast of characters (people �nvolved �n the process). 3. Document the ex�st�ng process us�ng the flowchart symbols. 4. D�scuss changes to be made �n the process w�th all those

�nvolved w�th the process. 5. Update the deployment flowchart w�th the proposed changes

and �mplement the new process 6. Study the effect�veness of the change and return to step 1 above.

NO

YES


131

NOMINAL GROUP TEChNIqUE (NGT)Ranking of consensus

Why?

Allows a team to come to consensus on relat�ve �mportance of �ssues, problems, or solut�ons by comb�n�ng �nd�v�dual �mportance rank�ngs �nto a team’s final rank�ng.

What?

• Bu�lds comm�tment to the team’s cho�ce through equal part�c�pat�on �n the process

• Allows every team member to rank �ssues w�thout be�ng pressured by others

• Puts qu�et team members on an equal foot�ng w�th more dom�nant members

• Makes a team’s consensus (or lack of �t) v�s�ble; the major causes of d�sagreement can be d�scussed.

how to do it:

1. Generate the l�st of �ssues, problems, or solut�ons to be pr�or�t�zed

In a new team w�th members who are not accustomed to team part�c�pat�on, �t may feel safer to do wr�tten, s�lent bra�nstorm�ng, espec�ally when deal�ng w�th sens�t�ve top�cs.

2. Wr�te statements on a fl�p chart or wh�te board

3. El�m�nate dupl�cate and/or clar�fy mean�ngs of any of the statements

As a leader, always ask for the team’s perm�ss�on and gu�dance when chang�ng statements.

4. Record the final l�st of statements on a fl�p chart or wh�te board

Example: Why does faculty have �ncons�stent output?

A Lack of tra�n�ng B No documented process C Unclear qual�ty standards D Lack of cooperat�on w�th other departments �n develop�ng standards E H�gh turnover

Use letters rather than numbers to �dent�fy each statement so that team members do not get confused by the rank�ng process that follows.


132

5. Each team member records the correspond�ng letters on a p�ece of paper and rank orders the statements

Example: Larry’s sheet of paper looks l�ke th�s: A 4 B 5 C 3 D 1 E 2

This example uses “5” as the most important ranking and “1” as the least important. Since individual rankings will be later combined, this “reverse order” minimizes the effect of team members leaving some statements blank. Therefore, a blank (value = 0) would not, in effect,

increase its importance.

6. Comb�ne the rank�ngs of all team members

John Paul George R�ngo Mary TotalA 4 5 2 2 1 = 14 B 5 4 5 3 5 = 22C 3 1 3 4 4 = 15D 1 2 1 5 2 = 11E 2 3 4 1 3 = 13

“No documented process,” B, would be the h�ghest pr�or�ty. The team would work on th�s first and then move through the rest of the l�st as needed.

variation:

Weighted MultivotingEach team member rates, not ranks, the relat�ve �mportance of cho�ces by d�str�but�ng a value, e.g., 100 po�nts, across the opt�ons. Each team member can d�str�bute th�s value among as many or as few cho�ces as des�red.

Example:

John Paul George R�ngo Mary TotalA 20 10 = 30 B 40 80 50 100 45 = 315C 30 5 10 25 = 70D 5 10 20 = 35E 10 10 20 10 = 50

W�th large numbers of cho�ces, or when the vot�ng for the top cho�ces �s very close, th�s process can be repeated for an agreed-upon number of �tems. Stop when the cho�ce �s clear.

NOMINAL GROUP TEChNIqUE (NGT) (Cont�nued)


133

CREATIvE PRObLEM SOLvING

PROcESS STEPS1. L�st perce�ved problems2. Gather relevant data3. Define actual problem4. Determ�ne alternat�ve solut�ons5. Analyze and evaluate alternat�ves6. Select solut�on7. Val�date solut�on

DIVERGENT THINkING*1. Accept all �deas and alternat�ves2. Defer judgment or evaluat�on3. D�scuss, comb�ne, h�tchh�ke, �mprove �deas4. When exhausted, move to converge

cONVERGENT THINkING*1. Establ�sh categor�es of alternat�ves2. Develop evaluat�on cr�ter�a3. Avo�d premature closure4. Keep eye on object�ve5. L�st strengths and weaknesses6. Select best alternat�ve or �dea

*Used sequent�ally dur�ng all problem-solv�ng steps


134

KNOT ChART

As you work your way through the problem, everyth�ng should move �nto the left column – Know.

The Knot Chart is useful for:

• In�t�ally sort�ng the wheat from the chaff• Organ�z�ng/coord�nat�ng the next steps of the problem-solv�ng

process

Th�nk Know Need to Know Op�n�on We Know


135

qUALITATIvE PRObLEM SOLvING(Kepner - Tregoe)1

Deviation Statement: (Describe the actual performance vs. should performance)

1. Define deviation.2. Describe what deviation IS and IS NOT.3. List distinctions between what deviation IS and IS NOT.4. Do distinctions indicate or suggest a change?5. Determine possible causes based on distinctions and changes.

1Copyright Kepner Tregoe, Inc. (1981). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. (Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., Research Road, P.O. Box 704, Princeton, N.J. 08542)

SpecifyingQuestion

What?(Identify)

Where?(Location)

When?(Timing)

Extent?(Magnitude)

Does the distinctionsuggest a change?

What is distinctive about“Is” vs. “Is Not”?

Is Is Not

Possible Causes:

Most Likely Cause:


136

GANTT ChART

A Gantt Chart �s used for plann�ng schedules and manag�ng projects. It �s a method for bas�c plann�ng and work �nstruct�on.

how to do it:

1. The Gantt Process beg�ns by l�st�ng the act�v�t�es of a project �n order of execut�on.

2. Place the number of each act�v�ty across the top of your chart. T�me durat�on such as days, weeks, years, etc., can replace act�v�ty numbers �f appropr�ate.

3. Draw vert�cal l�nes across the chart for each �tem.

4. Start�ng w�th number 1, beg�n compar�ng the act�v�t�es. Can number 1 be done at the same t�me as number 5 or 6?

5. Draw hor�zontal l�nes to �nd�cate wh�ch act�v�t�es can be done s�multaneously.

6. You now have an overv�ew of your project g�v�ng you a start�ng po�nt and t�me-sav�ng measures to help you complete the project on t�me.

ACTIvITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Requ�rements are wr�tten2. F�nances are arranged3. B�dd�ng takes place4. Contractor �s selected5. Prototype �s bu�lt6. Test�ng beg�ns

ACTIvITIES

1. Requ�rements are wr�tten2. F�nances are arranged3. B�dd�ng takes place4. Contractor �s selected5. Prototype �s bu�lt6. Test�ng beg�ns

Published by theDefense Acquisition UniversityFort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5565