USC ICM Workshop

1. USC ICM Workshop October 29-30, 2008 USC Los Angeles, CA

2. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Everything points to need for improvements in human capital • DAU approach that requires 4 weeks off-site has limitations • People do not tend to read policy and guidance • How do we best “work with programs”? • Program management does not understand that plans (such as SEP) are not just checkboxes; these plans describe how the programs should be run • What can we do to support the program between increment reviews? • Note: FCS had credential checks where people shared plans to complete builds • Goal: • Bring policy and guidance to life (bring it “off the page”) • Conduct a PSR that has a green risk cube: (cost, schedule, technical) • Ensure that the behavior of the Program Acquisition organization after MS B meets the agreements/documents/plans/etc that were put in place between MS A and MS B • How to best support the programs prior to MS A (ICM spans work prior to MS A) • ICM has milestones that align with MS A and MS B

3. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Milestone/Event ordering: • AoA • MS A • Define Acquisition Strategy • Pre-CP period • Workshop 1 • Workshop 2 • Etc • CP period • Workshop A • Workshop B • Etc • PSR (6-9 months prior to MS B); may or may not occur prior to PDR • PDR • MS B • DAU 4-6 week “bootcamp” • MS A/B Software Engineering guidance inputs: • Navy POPS • Navy SW Guide • AF SW Guide • SE/SW integration framework • ICM • Cost estimation • Survey results and recommendations • Start-Up Teams focus areas: • Coordination of the offices that “touch” the program • Prepare to reduce risk by providing just-in-time support between MS A and MS B

4. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Workshops (may be called Start-Up Teams or “TouchPoints”) between MS A and PSR; Note that ICM spans work prior to MS A) • N working sessions driven by program needs • Just-in-time training/tutorials • Non-evaluative • Advisory • Help people pass the “final exam”; please attend the “office hours” • Could include technology demos • External stakeholders do not just show up, assign actions, and leave; they help do work • Each Workshop TouchPoint has a focus (“how is it that we will be able to produce the evidence?”): • Acquisition strategy • Incentive structures • RFP wording • CP RFP wording • Post-MS B RFP wording • Support for baseline cost/schedule/etc estimates • WBS • Infrastructure • User engagement • Make sure all these assets are synchronized and stabilized • Mentoring • Send drafts to larger audiences

5. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Workshops: Possible team members • SSE – Engineering • DCMA – Contracts • DDR&E – Science and technology • PA&E – Metrics • DAU • DoD • PMO • Component leads • FFRDC’s • etc • Workshops: Awareness of overall environment • Looking at what is happening around you, including looking at emerging opportunities and risks • Validation of what was supposed to get done was done • Work to get done is getting done now • Planning for what needs to get done

6. BACKUP CHARTS

7. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Contractors have the concern of the customers “leveling the playing field” by seeing two competing demos and selecting a differentiating feature from one contractor and making it “required” from both • Removes the potential competitive advantage • Contractors “hold back” key features • AT&L is trying to discourage the combining of competing systems, such as LCS example of combining tower and shallow-water capabilities • Combining features during CP is not buying down risk – it is adding features • Can we postpone the new features to O&M? • Can we use PRDA funding to keep the contractor teams funding during down-select intervals? • Suggestion: Identify an actual pre-B program and support it using Start-Up Teams to adopt new approaches, such as ICM, TouchPoints, etc. • Or should we just continue to build a community? • “At DARPA, you are only as good as your next demo” • How frequent should your demos occur, what are the goals for the demos (risk reduction etc), who is the audience, etc.? • It will be hard to pin-down time frequency without defining goals/context/etc • Program needs to define goals for prototypes: risk reduction, key nominal capabilities, etc

8. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Need acquisition strategy for these new ideas • Why do contractors re-validate requirements after they win a contract? • Anticipate requirements changes • Acquisition reform decimated the acquisition workforce • Investing in human capital • Large portions of the acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire soon • There is no current career track for SW personnel in the acquisition workforce • CP Survey report needs to highlight benefits and pitfalls, so report can be action oriented • Basic CP value propositions: • There is significant risk exposure in making the wrong decision • The prototype has significant ROI for reducing the risk • Need “CRACK” stakeholder participants: • Committed, representative, authorized, collaborative, knowledgeable • Satisficing principle: All success-critical stakeholders • Key goal for CP: reduce Nunn-McCurdy recertifications • Lost of key staff during recertification period • Recertifications are expensive because of funding needed to conduct re-cert plus funding needed for contractor teams • Close-out costs can be greater than continuing to fund the contractor team • If certain programs are on the pathway to being “doomed” due to risks, CP may help us know that sooner

9. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • We need an update framework and updated guidance • Since systems take so long to develop and technology continues to change, we actually acquire “legacy systems” • Also: the systems we ultimately deliver that are sufficiently outdated that they are considered “legacy systems” at the time of delivery

10. Some Feedback on Strategic Issues • Need to weave 2x2 payoff-ease charts, task lists, and other recommendations into SE/SW roadmap • Select a few high-payoff ideas, such as Start-Up Teams • Need best-of-class example of favorable adoption of Competitive Prototyping • Challenging inhibitors: Indivisible IOC, need near/mid/etc-term payoff horizons • Define success criteria for roadmap and set expectations accordingly