Industry Perspectives for DoD SW Engineering S&T

1. Industry PerspectivesforDoD SW Engineering S&T Jim SturgesDirector, Engineering ProcessesLockheed Martin Corporation

2. Importance of Accuracy

3. “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them.” Albert Einstein

4. Industry’s top needs from S&T - Integrating Complex Systems • Management Development Research • Supported component libraries • Supported simulation frameworks

5. Management Development • DoD Program Managers must understand that Software Engineering is one discipline among many that contribute to products, and does not stand alone • “Great Programmers will perfectly encode rotten requirements.” – Bill Ballhaus, Chairman, The Aerospace Corporation • Acquisition Cycles • “The problem with the acquisition process is that by the time the people at the top are ready for the answer, the people at the bottom have forgotten the question.” – Norm Augustine, Augustine’s Laws • Acquisition Maturity Model • “Talking about quantitative management with this customer is laying pearls before swine.” – Anonymous software engineer

6. All Programs - CPI 1.200 1.150 Level 4 (SW & SE) Company Highlighted 1.100 1.050 Cost Performance Index 1.000 0.950 0.900 One point of CPI is worth $270 Million 0.850 0.800 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Period

7. If you do what you always did, the way you always did it….

8. Quality – Barry Boehm 40-1000 30-70 15-40 10 1 3-6 * Reference: Barry W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall) The cost to fix a defect found during operation phase may be as high as 1000 times* the cost to fix it during requirements phase

9. Quality -- DSMC 95% 100% Committed Costs 85% 90% 500-1000X 80% 70% 70% Cost to Extract Defects Operations Through Disposal 20-100X Prod/Test Phase 60% 50% Cumulative Percentage Life Cycle Cost 3-6X 40% 100% Develop- ment 30% Design Phase 50% 20% Concept Phase 20% 10% 15% 8% 0% Time Defense Systems Management College - 9/1993 Full Program Expenditures

10. Productivity Variation - LMIS

11. Supported Component Libraries • Reuse offers dramatic productivity/quality benefits • Design-for-reuse adds 25% to development costs • Who will pay? • As long as PEOs control all the budgets, nobody will be incentivized to make this happen • NASA’s predecessor cataloged every possible airfoil configuration, and airplane designers still use them today • Why aren’t DoD-specific [or highly related] software components deserving of the same attention?

12. Supported Simulation Frameworks • Simulation Based Acquisition makes a lot of sense • But each contractor has its own approach • And each Service/PEO has its own approach • No common approach • No ongoing support • Industry strongly supported a Joint SBA activity, but DoD could never make it happen • Could S&T activity define and produce an SBA framework that everyone can use?

13. Summary • It’s bad form to begin a presentation with an apology, so I’ll end with one • None of these three priorities involves rocket science, and none will win a Nobel Prize. So I’m sorry I didn’t show you the need for an agent-based, web-enabled node-traverser. • But any of those three priorities, when successfully executed, would provide a significant major benefit to all of our stakeholders • Let’s invalidate Augustine’s 27th Law: • “Software is like entropy. It is difficult to grasp, weighs nothing, and obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics: it always increases.”