Systems Engineering in DoD

1. Systems Engineering in DoD Mr. Gordon KranzDirector, Major Program Support Office of the Director, Defense Research & Engineering/Systems Engineering

2. Bottom-line Upfront • DoD 5000.02 changes emphasize early stages of pre-systems acquisition - prior to Milestone B (MS B) • Reduce risk before making business commitment • Improve likelihood of being able to meet commitments • The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Actof 2009 furthers this emphasis with • additional certification requirements at MS A and B, • mandatory competitive prototyping, and • system-level Preliminary Design Review [PDR] before MS B for all MDAPs Knowledge-based Acquisition – Starting Programs Right!

3. DoD Instruction 5000.02 • Mandatory Materiel Development Decision • Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems” requiring technology development • Mandatory system-level PDR and CDR with reports to and assessments by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) • Strengthened MDA certifications at Milestones A and B

4. Acquisition Reform - SE Thumbnail • New legislation, Public Law 111-23, recognizes the importance of SE to weapon systems acquisition • Heavy focus on starting MDAPs right: • Development and tracking of measurable performance criteria as part of SEPs and TESs / TEMPs • Requiring completion of competitive prototypes for all Major Defense Acquisition Programs • Requiring completion and MDA assessment of a system-level Preliminary Design Review before MS B • Codifying a role for systems engineering in development planning, lifecycle management and sustainability • Yearly OSD assessment to Congress of Component capabilities for SE, development planning, and DT&E and of SE in MDAPs

5. Summary of Legislation The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 contains provisions that will: • Address problems with unreasonable performance requirements by requiring DoD to reestablish systems engineering organizations and developmental testing capabilities; make trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance early in the program cycle; and conduct preliminary design reviews before giving approval to new acquisition programs; • Address problems with unreasonable cost and schedule estimates by establishing a new, independent director of cost assessment to ensure that unbiased data is available for senior DoD managers; • Address problems with the use of immature technologies by requiring the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to periodically review and assess the maturity of critical technologies and by directing the Department to make greater use of prototypes, including competitive prototypes, to prove that new technologies work before trying to produce them; and • Address problems with costly changes in the middle of a program by tightening the so-called “Nunn-McCurdy” requirements for underperforming programs. Excerpts from Bill Signing Ceremony Press Release – May 22, 2009

6. Impactof Acquisition Reform Legislation on Early Acquisition Policy • Establishes Director, Systems Engineering (D, SE) and Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation (D, DT&E) as principal advisors to the Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) on systems engineering and development planning and on developmental T&E, respectively • Mandates documented assessment of technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies for MDAPs during the Technology Development (TD) phase • Establishes D, DT&E and D, SE joint tracking and Congressional reporting on MDAP achievement of measurable performance criteria • Mandates competitive prototyping and MDA completion of a formal Post-Preliminary Design Review Assessment for all MDAPs before MS B; additional MDA certification to both at MS B • Strengthens technical analysis of cost and schedule breaches during the Technology Development (pre-MS B) and the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (post-MS B) phases

7. Acquisition Lifecycle Comparisons Defense Acquisition Management System, May 12, 2003 A B C (Program Initiation) System Development and Demonstration Production and Deployment Operations and Support Concept Refinement Technology Development Design Readiness Review Full-Rate Production Decision Review ConceptDecision Defense Acquisition Management System, December 8, 2008 A B C (Program Initiation) Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Materiel Solution Analysis Operations and Support Technology Development FRP Decision Review PDR PDR CDR Materiel Development Decision PDR after B w/ Post-PDRAssessment Post-CDR Assessment Or Defense Acquisition Management System, May 22, 2009 Technology Development A B C (Program Initiation) Technological Maturity and Integration Risk Assessment Engineering and Manufacturing Development Materiel Solution Analysis Production and Deployment Operations and Support FRP Decision Review Competitive Prototyping PDR CDR Materiel Development Decision Post-CDR Assessment Post-PDRAssessment

8. Renewed emphasis on manufacturing across the lifecycle Materiel Development Decision (MDD) DoD 5000.02 and PL 111-23 Change theEarly Acquisition Landscape New 2366a & 2366b Certifications LCSP PDR CDR PDR, PDR Report to the MDA, and Post-PDR-Assessment System-level CDR with an initial product baseline and a Post-CDR Report to the MDA Competitive Prototypes Post-CDR Assessment by the MDA between EMD sub- phases • What are the implications of these changes for programs and SEs? • How can systems engineering enable the program during this early phase?

9. What This Means for Systems Engineers • Systems engineering is now recognized in law as inherently necessary in requirements definition, development planning, and early acquisition • Need for and focus of allengineering in the “pre-acquisition” phases (Materiel Decision Analysis and Technology Development) is dramatically altered: • Earlier engineering involvement (well before Milestone A) • More government expertise to plan for and oversee requirements definition, technology maturation, and competitive prototyping leading to fully expressed system design (the allocated baseline) at the system-level Preliminary Design Review

10. New Challenges for Programs • Need for Program Office formation and PM skill-sets after MDD and prior to MS A • Increased importance of the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) (as a surrogate Acquisition Strategy) at MS A • Schedule and funding shifts – EMD into TD • Earlier engagement with industry and different contracting strategies for technology maturation, competitive prototyping, data rights, PDR before MS B, etc. • Explicit need for earlier, formal SE process application (e.g., data, configuration, and risk management)

11. DDR&E Organization Principal Deputy Mr. Alan R. Shaffer Director, Defense Researchand Engineering (DDR&E) Honorable Zachary J. Lemnios Defense AdvancedResearch ProjectsAgency (DARPA) Dr. Regina Dugan Defense TechnicalInformation Center(DTIC) Mr. Paul Ryan Director, Research Dr. David Honey Director, Systems Engineering Mr. Stephen Welby Director, Rapid Fielding Mr. Earl Wyatt Director, DevelopmentalTest & Evaluation (DT&E) Mr. Chris DiPetto(Acting) Principal DeputyDr. André van Tilborg Principal DeputyMr. Terry Jaggers Principal DeputyMr. Ben Riley Principal DeputyMr. Chris DiPetto

12. A B C MDD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment O&S Technology Development CDD CPD CBA ICD PDR CDR FRPDR New Emphasis on Development Planning and Early SE Development Planning Development SE DP(Early SE) LCS DT&E DP: Development Planning DT&E: Developmental Test and Evaluation LCS: Life Cycle Sustainment SE: System Engineering CBA: Capabilities Based Assessment CDD: Capability Development Document CPD: Capability Production Document ICD: Initial Capabilities Document MDD: Materiel Development Decision

13. SE Input to MDD CONOPS Awareness of Strategic Context Engagement with S&T Engagement with JCIDS Engagement in AoA Guidance Plan Analysis Activity Report Engineering Analysis Consideration of SOS/Interdependency, Interoperability Context SEP for Milestone A Input to TDS (CTE, CPI), TES, CCE SE in TD Contract Requirements Tech Reviews (ASR, Early SE Requirements) Development Planning and Early SE Critical Activities A B MDD CDD CBA ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development *Reference DAG Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3..2

14. The Milestone A Planning Challenge Documents / activities / data requiring technical input from the Systems Engineer beforeMilestone A: • Analysis of Alternatives • Technology Development Strategy • Critical Program Information • Technology maturation plans • Competitive Prototyping plans • Net-Centric Data Strategy • Market Research • Data Management Strategy • Component Cost Estimate • Systems Engineering Plan • Test and Evaluation Strategy The PM’s Dilemma: Where to find the data!?

15. Why Is This Hard? • Program offices (both government and contractor) have very little experience with pre-MS B systems engineering activities • The DAG guidance is voluminous – online resource with over 750 printed pages in recent revision • Program offices have limited understanding about interdependencies within the DAG guidance • New implementing policy and DAG guidance in response to PL 111-23 will not be available immediately

16. New Challenges for SEPs • Explicit technical planning for the Technology Development phase at Milestone A (and subsequent Milestones) including: • Technology maturation • Competitive prototyping • Manufacturing readiness as assessed in Tech Reviews • Critical Program Information in design • Item Unique Identification (IUID) planning • Integration of RAM and HSI with SE • Role of Component Configuration Steering Board relative to requirements and configuration management processes • Mandatory system-level PDR before MS B for MDAPs and rationale for its placement before or after Milestone B for non-MDAPs • PDR Report to the MDA either side of MS B • Post-PDR Assessment by the MDA for MDAPs or if PDR after MS B • Mandatory system-level CDR • Post-CDR Report to and Assessment by the MDA followed by an ADM • IUID Implementation Plan as SEP Annex at Milestones B and C

17. SE Policy & GuidanceSome Activities • [Re] Adopted ISO/IEC Standards into ASSIST • 15288 [SE], 12207 [SWE, in progress], 16085 [Risk], 15939 [Measurement], 26702 [IEEE 1220] • Reviewed ISO drafts • [[in JTC1/SC7 for Systems & Software Engineering] • 24748 [guide for Life cycle management, 24748-2 [guide to 15288[, • 29148 [Requirements engineering] • Reviewed GEIA/EIA drafts • EIA-649 STD and HDBK • GEIA-Std-927 • Under development in SESS [DDRE/SE approves] • MIL-STD-189A Reliability Growth Management • Mil-Std-31000 Engineering drawings • Other • Updated earlier cancellation of Mil-Std-973 to note that EIA-649 is a good alternative • Adopted ANSI/GEIA-STD-0009 [Reliability] • led update of SEMP DID; ready to be posted in ASSIST • In process guide updates: SEP Prep, SE in Contracting, IMP/IMS, Risk Mgt, DAG/SE

18. SE Policy and Guidance Structure DoD 5000.02 Data Flow: Acquisition Policy Defense Acq Guidebook Chapter 4 SE Chapter 8 Security Policy-specific guidance linked to . . . M&S Guidance Risk Mgmt Guide “Wall Chart” PPP DoDI 5200.39 . . . all other relevant guidance DoD M&S MgtDoDD 5000.59 SE Slide Rule SEP Prep Guide Systems Assurance Guide Safety/ESOH Guides DM Guide DoD M&S VV&A DoDI 5000.61 DTM 08-048 Supply Chain Risk Management EW and C2WCountermeasures DoDD 3222.3 SafetyMIL-STD-882D Functional Architecture Development Guide RAM Guide Contracting for SE Guide PPP Prep Guide DoD IA DoDD 8500.01E RAM-C Rationale Report Manual Tech Review Guide CPI Security Classification Guide SOS SE Guide Interoperability & Supportability of IT & NSS DoDD 4630.05 CM Mil Hbk 61A IMP/IMS Guide Planned CPI Identification Tool WBS Mil Hbk 881 Extent MOSA Guide Acq Security-Related Policies & Issuances Tool PP Contract Language Compendium Other Standards & Mil Handbooks Other Design Consideration Guides http://www.acq.osd.mil/sse/pg/guidance.html

19. If any who review this presentation have questions, feel free to contact Gordon Kranz at: <Gordon.Kranz@osd.mil>