NDIA Systems Engineering Division Mission Analysis Committee Meeting 20 April 2010

1. NDIA Systems Engineering DivisionMission Analysis CommitteeMeeting20 April 2010

2. Agenda • Mission Analysis Committee Overview • Early SE Development Planning • DP Working Group Discussion • Cost and Affordability in DP • SoS Committee Collaboration • DT&E Committee Collaboration

3. Mission Analysis Committee Overview

4. Mission Analysis Committee • http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Pages/Mission.aspx

5. Mission Analysis Committee Charter To provide a forum where government, industry, and academia can share lessons learned, promote best practices, address issues, and advocate the role of Pre-Milestone A Mission Analysis in the Systems Engineering process. The primary purpose is determining successful strategies for incorporating mission analysis principles and their relationships to CONOPS, Mission Architecture, M&S, etc. to provide better Warfighter solutions.

6. MA Committee - 2010 Initiatives • Institutionalize early Development Planning • Study Industry specific Early SE processes and identify best practices (Feb – Aug ‘10) • Create Early SE implementation framework (Oct ‘10) • Initial Outbrief at SE Conference (Oct ‘10) • Conduct Early SE Workshop (1st Qtr ‘11) • Issue Report on Best Practices (1st Qtr ‘11) • Support SoS Committee to identify tools and practices to support architecture level assessment of emerging capabilities in SoS initiatives • Maintain close collaboration with DT&E, SOS, and other committees

7. MA Committee Website • http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Pages/Mission.aspx

8. 2010 Meeting Schedule • Meetings in conjunction with SE Division Meetings • Monday, April 19th • General Dynamics, 1201 M St. SE • Wednesday, June 16th • Lockheed Martin, 2121 Crystal Drive • Wednesday, August 18th • General Dynamics, 1201 M St. SE • NDIA SE Conference, October 2010 • NDIA SE Division Planning Meeting, December 2010

9. Early SE Development Planning

10. MA Committee Support to OSD DDR&E/SE

11. MA Committee Support to OSD DDR&E/SE

12. MA Committee Support to OSD DDR&E/SE

13. WSARA Impact

14. Development Planning

16. Development Planning

17. Development Planning

18. Development Planning Working Groupsponsored by theNDIA Systems Engineering Division(In conjunction with Aerospace Industries Association)19 April 2010

19. DP Working Group Objectives • Identify specific areas, activities and knowledge in the pre-milestone “A“ timeframe where industry engagement could inform early technical analysis and engineering for DoD Acquisition Programs. • Understand the available and potential mechanisms necessary to facilitate industry involvement in that early technical analysis and engineering. • Recognize the issues, limitations, and questions and formulate recommendations to foster industry involvement in early technical analysis and engineering. Gain practical input from industry leaders to help shape Development Planning policy & guidance.

20. DP Working Group Output • A report will be provided to OSD DDR&E/SE identifying industry’s potential role to engage in early technical analysis and engineering for DoD Acquisition Programs, specifically addressing the following: • Identify how the government can engage with industry in early technical analysis and engineering • Identify the constraints the government and industry could face during engagements involving early technical analysis and engineering and suggested recommendations • Identify the mechanisms Government could use to engage with industry during early technical analysis and engineering • Identify the appropriate key characteristics of DoD Policy & Guidance needed to enable industry’s successful engagement in early technical analysis and engineering

21. DP Working Group Specifics • Expected to be 6 months in duration • Members will appointed and notified • Comprised of 60 – 75 individuals representing: • Industry • Government • Military • The NDIA SE Division will be soliciting broad advance input and will incorporate this data into the detailed discussions of the Working Group. • Allows all members of the SE Division (Government, Military, Industry, and Academia) to provide their perspectives

22. DP Working Group Specifics • Potential candidates for the Working Group are asked to submit their name and qualifications to one of the points of contact listed on the last slide • Candidates should be knowledgeable in one or more of the objective areas previously listed • Other specific areas of interest include: • Military Development Planners/Development Labs • IRAD/S&T • T&E Communities • Legal/Contracting

23. Points of Contact • For further information on the Working Group, please contact the following: • Mr. Bob Rassa, NDIA Systems Engineering Division (SED) Chair (RCRassa@Raytheon.com) • Mr. Mike Duffey, OUSD(DDR&E)SE, DP Working Group Government Co-chair (Michael.Duffey@osd.mil) • Mr. John Lohse, NDIA SED Mission Analysis Committee Chair, DP Working Group Industry Co-chair (jjlohse@Raytheon.com)

24. Working Groups Three working groups with freedom to comment across the DP phase, but each asked to focus in a certain area WG1 focus – Industry Support to Concept Development and Engineering (Pre-MDD) – Current and Desired WG2 focus – Industry Support to Concept Evaluation and Refinement (Post-MDD) – Current and Desired WG3 focus – Government mechanisms for industry engagement WG1 and WG2 to be conducted simultaneously via breakout groups WG3 will be conducted with the entire team following WG1 and WG2 debrief

25. Working Group 1- Draft Content • Focus – Industry Support to Concept Development and Engineering (Pre-MDD) – Current and Desired • Requirements development • Understand operational needs • Anticipate future needs • Correlation with CBA • Correlation with Analytic Agenda • Correlation with CAPE • Mission Architecture development • Understand Strategic Risk • Prioritization of gaps (CAPE) • Technology awareness/readiness • Technology driven by advanced concepts • Maintain critical technology TRL assessments • Collaborative experimentation and development • MDD quality attributes (care-abouts) • TRL assessment • Critical KPPs • MOEs/MOPs/COIs • Budgeting • Etc. • What are the available tools, processes, and methodologies? • Mission Analysis • CONOPS/MUAs • Etc. Source: Mr. Michael Duffey Deputy Director, Development Planning Office of the Director for Systems Analysis Systems Engineering Directorate Office of Director, Defense Research and Engineering Development Planning NDIA SE Division Meeting February 17, 2010

26. Working Group 2 - Draft Content • Focus – Industry Support to Concept Evaluation and Refinement (Post-MDD) – Current and Desired • AoA quality attributes • Critical KPPs • MOEs/MOPs/COIs • TRLs/MRLs - Technical risk • T&E input • “ilities” • Etc. • What are the available tools, processes, and methodologies? • Mission Analysis • CONOPS/MUAs • Mission Architecture • M&S • Etc. Source: Mr. Michael Duffey Deputy Director, Development Planning Office of the Director for Systems Analysis Systems Engineering Directorate Office of Director, Defense Research and Engineering Development Planning NDIA SE Division Meeting February 17, 2010

27. Working Group 3 - Draft Content • Focus – Government mechanisms for industry engagement • RFIs • Pre-bidders Conferences • Study contracts • Etc.

28. Considerations for WG1 and WG2 Source: Mr. Michael Duffey Deputy Director, Development Planning Office of the Director for Systems Analysis Systems Engineering Directorate Office of Director, Defense Research and Engineering Development Planning NDIA SE Division Meeting February 17, 2010 - Need to ensure the workshop addresses these challenges - Need to ensure the workshop identifies other challenges 28

29. Considerations for WG1 and WG2 Make sure we get these questions answered. These could go into the questions we ask industry to brief on. Source: Mr. Michael Duffey Deputy Director, Development Planning Office of the Director for Systems Analysis Systems Engineering Directorate Office of Director, Defense Research and Engineering Development Planning NDIA SE Division Meeting February 17, 2010 29

30. Cost and Affordability in DP Kishore Gragani Presentation

31. SoS Committee Collaboration Discussion

32. DT&E Committee Collaboration Discussion

33. Back-up

34. Mission Analysis Committee Committee Objectives • Understand the impact of the new DoD 5000.02, DAG, and CJCS 3170 on Pre-Milestone A (Early) SE • Understand the relationship of Mission Analysis, CONOPS, Mission Architecture, M&S, etc. in Early SE. • Define ways Industry can better support Early SE Development Planning • Evaluate and provide recommendations on Early SE policy and guidelines • Provide best practices for Early SE activities. • Strengthen the SE skill set for dealing with high level of abstraction in Early SE. • Related SE Committee and DOD Interfaces • Identify cross SE Committee Participation • DT&E Committee - Develop T&E Early SE Thread • SoS Committee - Elevate Early SE framework to Early SoS framework • HSI Committee – Develop process to ensure HSI operational relevance is properly identified • Identify linkage to other OSD Initiatives • DDR&E Imperatives • Prepare for Uncertain Future • Reduce MDAP cost, acquisition time, and risk 2009 Accomplishments • Stood up Mission Analysis Committee (Apr ’09) • Decomposed JCIDS exit criteria and AoA entrance criteria, and identified initial set of gaps. (Jun/Aug ’09) • Reviewed USAF Early SE process (Oct ’09) 2010 Initiatives • Study Service and Industry specific Early SE processes and identify best practices (Feb – Jun ‘10) • Create Early SE implementation framework (Aug ‘10) • Initial Outbrief at SE Conference (Oct ‘10) • Conduct Early SE Workshop (1st Qtr ‘11) • Issue Report on Best Practices (1st Qtr ‘11)

35. CJCSI 3170.01G Requirements to Acquisition Study

36. Transition From ICD to the AoA Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System Initial Capabilities Document (ICD).• A document that describes the need for a materiel approach to a specific capability gap derived from an initial analysis of materiel approaches. The ICD defines the capability gap in terms of the functional area, the relevant range of military operations, desired effects, and time. It summarizes the results of the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) analysis and describes why non-materiel changes alone are not adequate to fully provide the capability. The ICD supports the Materiel Development Decision and Milestone A.

37. Transition From ICD to the AoA • ICD format and detailed content identified in the JCIDS Manual (Appendix A to Enclosure F) • No mention of MOEs, MOPs, COIs, etc. ICD Format Listed in JCIDS Manual

38. Transition From ICD to the AoA Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System Materiel Solution Analysis Phase AoA SE “V”

39. Transition From ICD to the AoA Interim DAG 3.3.2 ….At the Materiel Development Decision review, the Director, Program Analysis & Evaluation (DPA&E), or DoD Component equivalent, proposes study guidance for the AoA. The AoA study guidance is approved by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA), and is provided to the lead DoD Component. Following approval of the AoA study guidance, the lead DoD Component prepares an AoA study plan that describes the technical approach and management of the AoA. A suggested template for the AoA study plan is provided in section 3.3.3. The study plan is coordinated with the MDA, and approved by the DPA&E, prior to the start of the AoA…. Interim DAG AoA Guidance

40. Transition From ICD to the AoA • Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 3.3.3 • ….A recommended outline for the AoA plan would resemble the following: • • Introduction <GB section 3.3.3.1> •  Background •  Purpose •  Scope • • Ground Rules <GB section 3.3.3.2> •  Scenarios •  Threats •  Environment •  Constraints and Assumptions •  Timeframe •  Excursions • • Alternatives <GB section 3.3.3.3> •  Description of Alternatives •  Nonviable Alternatives •  Operations Concepts •  Sustainment Concepts • • Determination of Effectiveness Measures <GB section 3.3.3.4> •  Mission Tasks •  Measures of Effectiveness •  Measures of Performance • Effectiveness Analysis <GB section 3.3.3.5> •  Effectiveness Methodology •  Models, Simulations, and Data •  Effectiveness Sensitivity Analysis • • Cost Analysis <GB section 3.3.3.6> •  Life-Cycle Cost Methodology •  Additional Total Ownership Cost Considerations (if applicable) •  Fully Burdened Cost of Delivered Energy (if applicable) •  Models and Data •  Cost Sensitivity and/or Risk Analysis • • Cost-Effectiveness Comparisons <GB section 3.3.3.7> •  Cost-Effectiveness Methodology •  Displays or Presentation Formats •  Criteria for Screening Alternatives • • Organization and Management <GB section 3.3.3.8> •  Study Team/Organization •  AoA Review Process •  Schedule Need to map the ICD content to the AoA Plan content. (Capability Requirements to MOEs/MOPs)

41. Summary • MA Committee will support OSD DDR&E/SE • Industry Development Planning best practices • Identify emerging challenges in “uncertain future” • Identify Industry role in Development Planning • Meeting Schedule identified for remainder of 2010

42. Assessment Early SE Development Planning Requirements Acquisition Budgeting Early SE Development Planning • Warfighter Requirements • Prioritization of Gaps • Defense Acquisition System • DoDI 5000.02 • - Policy & Guidance • - MDAP Decision Authority • - AoA • Formulation of MOEs and MOPs • JCIDS Process • CJCSI 3170.01G • CBA • - DCR • - ICD • PPB&E • POM Formulation • FYDP • Appropriations