Incremental Commitment Model as Applied to DoD Acquisition Insights from a Business Process Model of DoD Acquisition Po

1. Incremental Commitment Model as Applied to DoD AcquisitionInsights from a Business Process Model of DoD Acquisition Policy and SE Guidance Dr. Judith Dahmann The MITRE Corporation

2. Background • Updates to DoD acquisition regulations (DoD 5000) are underway • Defense Acquisition Guide (DAG) (particularly SE guidance) is being updated to address the changes in acquisition regulation • A Business Process Model of DoD 5000 and SE Guidance has been constructed to provide technical support to this process Acquisition is a complex process requiring systems thinking and SE analysis like other complex systems

3. DoD Acquisition Regulations and Guidance Regulations DoDI 5000.02 Guidance Defense Acquisition Guide Focus of current activity Context is worth 50 IQ Points

4. Production and Deployment O&S Draft Early Acquisition Policy Changes* Early Acquisition MS A MS B MS C JCIDS Process Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Demonstration Materiel Solution Analysis Joint Concepts CBA ICD CDD CPD Technology Development Strategic Guidance MDD CDR PDR Full Rate Production Decision Review Materiel Development Decision (MDD) PDR and a PDR report to the MDA before MS B (moves MS B to the right) Competing prototypes before MS B Coordination Draft, DoDI 5000.02

5. Why is this hard? • Very little experience with current pre- Milestone B SE guidance • Makes it difficult to know what to ‘adjust’ given changes • The current DAG guidance is voluminous • Online resource with over 500 printed pages of information without hotlinks • Limited understanding about the interdependencies among the guidance provided to the program office from different perspectives • Any added SE guidance will compete attention from already over burdened program office • Consequently, it was important to understand how SE fits into the context of early acquisition • What is the relationship between SE and guidance for other areas Need a structured approach to understanding how SE fits into larger context

6. Why Business Process Modeling? Business process modeling (BPM) rapidly articulates processes and relationships Supports communication and common understanding among stakeholders Provides a means for understanding relationships among concurrent stakeholder activities Information to update the DAG is closely aligned to information for the pilot model; efficient leveraging of effort Objective is to support understanding of how SE fits into the larger context of DoD 5000 and guidance An BPM model has been developed to address SE guidance in context of regulations and other guidance ‘lanes’ addressing Proposed DoD 5000 SE guidance (draft updates to DAG Chapter 4) Relationships between SE guidance and 5000 and guidance in other DAG chapters (limited) Model provides a framework to articulate the role and relationship of early SE

7. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Open standard maintained by the Object Management Group (OMG) Allows organizations the ability to communicate processes in a standard manner Facilitates understanding of performance collaborations and business transactions between organizations (B2B) Numerous COTS vendors support BPMN AGM implemented using iGrafx Process 2007 Allows for model Simulation, XPDL export (for sharing with other tools) AGM is a Process Model, not only a graphical flow chart, but process can be analyzed and simulated BPMN graphical elements depict ordered sequence of business process Notation designed to coordinate sequence of processes and message flows between different process participants in a related set of activities BPMN Objects Task (Rectangle): Activity, Process, Sub-Process Event (Circle): Send/Receive Message, Start Event, End Event Gateway (Diamond): Merge, Fork, Join Information Flow (Dashed Line): Between Swimlanes Process Flow (Solid Line): Within Swimlane Task Event Gateway

8. Approach • Iterative approach to building, reviewing, applying the model • Begin with a ‘first pass’ rapid development based on the current 5000 documentation using ‘surrogate’ subject matter expert (SME) • Review ‘first pass’ model with SMEs • Update (second pass), review and revise • Conduct an initial assessment, review and revise in collaboration with stakeholders • Use model as a framework for enterprise level exchanges Version 1.0 if the model is in place and in use Work in progress

9. JCIDS Notional Initial Model Layout MS A MDD MS B 5000 AoA Planning AoA Conduct AoA Review & MS A Prep Prototype Planning Prototype Conduct Prototype Assessment Preliminary Design Prep for MS B Development CDR PDR SE Ch 4 Represent the SE actions, technical reviews, and products based on ESEWG drafts Decision Support Systems Ch 1 Ch 2 Acquisition Strategy Ch 3 Affordability Life Cycle Logistics Ch 5 Guidance Human Systems Integration Ch 6 Ch 7 IT & NSS Ch 8 Intelligence Ch 9 Test & Evaluation Ch 10 Assessments and Reporting Program Management Ch 11 Other

10. Birdseye View of the Model MS A MS B MDD PDR AoA Best viewed as 4’ x 10’ version Model provides a way to visualize MDD to MS B

11. Results Clear description of Key elements of new DoD 5000 Relationship among the guidance across the DAG chapters Focus for SE Guidance during early phases of acquisition process including A framework for ‘enterprise’ discussion Showing the numerous guidance ‘lanes’ and where they provide guidance to an acquisition program Identifying issues in aligning guidance with changes in policy Establishing SE relationships with other guidance ‘lanes’ Demonstrating SE contributions to acquisition process and work in other lanes A mechanism for identifying and addressing issues e.g. SE best practices pre- MS A Impact of moving MS B to follow Preliminary Design Review Model provides a framework to look at issues across various guidance lanes

12. Example: Best Practices for MDD to MS A MDD to MS ASlice Upfront Engineering Analysis • Provided basis for DAG SE guidance on • Key SE Activities • Impact on program planning SE informs Decision Documents SE & AoA AoA • Critical role for early program office SE • Advise and review AoA • Engineering analysis of recommended solution for TDS technical planning Key SE Activities, Events and Products and Their Support to Program Planning

13. Example: Moving Milestone B to follow PDR • PDR has been an SE event; change impacts a range of considerations outside of SE Preliminary Design ‘Slice’ of Model • Model provided a framework for enterprise level discussion • Identified key inputs needed prior to preliminary design including • User requirements, cost constraints, critical technologies, critical protection items Topic of a July workshop to address the impact of the change across the guidance lanes (e.g. DAG Chapters)

14. So what does this have to do with ICM? Basic tenets of the Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Decision are made about an acquisition incrementally at key anchor points based on evidence and assessment of risk Past workshops have noted the gross similarity between ICM and major DoD Acquisition milestones Misses the importance of smaller, incremental and iterative steps A review of the results of the current model of DoD policy and guidance shows a series of cross lane, checkpoints between major milestones This ‘pattern’ in the model suggests a ‘natural’ application of ICM to Defense Acquisition

15. Patterns in the Model • ‘Natural’ synchronization points from MDD to MS B • Points at which input from across lanes support action • Results of the action lead to feedback to each lane for next product MDD MS A MS B 1 3 4 5 6 7 2 PDR AoA Rec’d Material Solution MDD Mandatory Entry to Acquisition MS A Feasible System Design System Level Specification Preliminary Design MS B Wave pattern of interactions

16. Wave Patterns in the Model • ‘Natural’ synchronization points from MDD to MS B • Points at which input from across lanes support activity/decisions • Results of the action lead to feedback to each lane for next product MS A MS B MDD 1 3 4 5 6 7 2 Rec’d Material Solution MDD Mandatory Material Decision MS A Feasible System Design System Level Specification Preliminary Design MS B Series of points at which there are broad cross lane interactions

17. An Example: Feasible Design Develop Feasible System Design Review System Design Users Tech Maturity Assessment SE Plan Results provide input to other areas (‘Lanes’) Design based on inputs from other areas (‘Lanes’) MS B MS A MDD Activities within lanes then process results for input at next point

18. Question… Are these patterns suggestive of ‘natural’ anchor points ala ICM? Points at which your would do well to review evidence from across the areas in the program to assess risk and make an incremental decision about next steps? If so, what would you recommend to program management office and systems of the appropriate actions at these points? What does this say about opportunities to apply the tenets of ICM to DoD acquisitions?

19. Backup

20. Initial Model Scope Concept: Focus on Early SE First phases of acquisition process, subdivided into discrete stages Decision Lanes Represent 5000 and DAG Chapter 4 in some detail Represent SE ‘inputs’ and outputs Initially represent other guidance ‘lanes’ as SE sources and sinks Include ‘other category for unknowns