Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Defense Acquisition Review Journal ing methodologies to operate and maintain systems of systems “once they have been fielded are scarce” (p. 43). Given these destabilizing budget pressures, SoS acquisition will face daunting challenges in the PPBE system. This burden may aggravate resourcing tensions between component systems and jeopardize system-wide development efforts. A reasonable and effective solution for this problem would be to introduce the DAPA Panel’s SPFA concept in an SoS, empowering its lead sponsor to manage budget trade-offs across the spectrum of component systems. reQuireMents: DisciPline anD flexiBility, strikinG a Balance in an sos As in resourcing, the DAPA panel also discovered instabilities in requirements generation that were rooted in differing organizational values. Less inclined to scrutinize details of program management and funding, requirements writers mandate “systems that are technologically unrealistic or unable to be delivered [on time]” (DAPA Report, 2006, p. 5). Furthermore, the DAPA Report describes how extended development timeframes destabilize system requirements due to the need to adapt to evolving operational environments, military priorities, acquisition rules, and overarching policies. Overall, the DAPA panel found little to recommend in the JCIDS, characterizing the system as cumbersome, overly complex, and unsuitable for continued use. fiGuRe 3. dapa Joint CapaBilities aCQuisition and divestMent proCess and iMpleMentation plan 186
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent DAPA’s Recommendation on Requirements. The DAPA Panel recommended scrapping JCIDS to implement a new system (Figure 3). Its report suggests an alternative Joint Capabilities Acquisition and Divestment (JCAD) planning system that would streamline and simplify processes to “enhance requirements stability” (DAPA Report, 2006, p. 44). However, features of the JCAD plan that emphasize a more linear approach and increased inter-Service competition might interfere with effective SoS requirements generation. The JCAD system would expect the Joint Staff Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J-8) to develop an “integrated, time-phased, fiscally informed capability, acquisition, and divestiture plan” (DAPA Report, 2006, p. 39). The USD(AT&L) would then use the J-8 plan to invite competing proposals for material solutions from the Services. While this procedure could significantly improve requirements generation for many programs, it could introduce counterproductive tensions for integrated SoS development. reQuireMents ProBleMs sPecific to sos DeVeloPMent Developing requirements for a complete SoS will likely require a fresh approach. Most critics of the JCIDS rightly criticize its inability to stabilize requirements. However, proposals to introduce additional discipline in requirements generation fail to address the expected challenges of SoS development. Instead, SoSE experts emphasize the need for increased flexibility to cope with SoS complexities. Developing requirements for a complete SoS will likely require a fresh approach. The description of SoS development published by Keating et al. (2003) suggests elements of a new approach. At inception, one must “proceed with the assumption that the initial problem definition or mission is always incorrect or suspect” (p. 43). Additionally, requirements for SoS components will be difficult to articulate as “increasing information intensity, contextual richness, and problem complexity all contribute to the need for evolving systems engineering to address emergent complex systems problems” (p. 40). In essence, SoSE requires adaptation to changing requirements beyond what current acquisition processes allow. The proposed JCAD system does not provide an effective construct to address these complexities. As described in the DAPA Report (2006), JCAD processes are linear and sequential. This process is ideally suited for easily described capability needs, but will not facilitate an appreciation for complex component system interactions that contribute to SoS system capabilities. 187
Page 2 and 3:
Vacant Office of Small Business Pro
Page 4 and 5:
133 151 disruption of testing regim
Page 7 and 8:
Defense ARJ executiVe eDitor Defens
Page 9 and 10:
July 2008 Joint attack Munition sys
Page 11 and 12:
Does orGaniZational leVel influence
Page 13 and 14:
creatiVe Potential anD PracticeD cr
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arM
Page 33 and 34:
tAble 1. suMMary Case inforMation S
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
tAble 9. Continuity of tradoC staff
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
HoW to Make incentiVe systeM of anD
Page 51 and 52: tAble 2. suMMary of Consensus views
Page 53 and 54: HoW to Make incentiVe systeM of anD
Page 63 and 64: conclusions HoW to Make incentiVe s
Page 65 and 66: endnotes HoW to Make incentiVe syst
Page 67 and 68: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? PPBe: a
Page 69 and 70: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 1995).
Page 71 and 72: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? cation;
Page 73 and 74: Our policy to counter international
Page 75 and 76: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? reminis
Page 77 and 78: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? process
Page 79 and 80: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? COE. As
Page 81 and 82: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? with th
Page 83 and 84: RefeRences PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pi
Page 85 and 86: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Martin,
Page 87 and 88: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Wachows
Page 89 and 90: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 6. The
Page 91 and 92: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent syste
Page 93 and 94: tHe Defense acQuisition fraMeWork:
Page 95 and 96: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent tHe D
Page 97 and 98: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent searc
Page 99 and 100: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent “em
Page 101: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent for l
Page 105 and 106: � � systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMe
Page 107 and 108: RefeRences systeM of systeMs DeVelo
Page 109 and 110: endnotes systeM of systeMs DeVeloPM
Page 111 and 112: a GliMPse into DoD WeaPon systeMs P
Page 113 and 114: � � � � � � � systeM
Page 115 and 116: systeM DoD WeaPon of systeMs DeVelo
Page 123: systeM DoD WeaPon of systeMs DeVelo
Page 126 and 127: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
Page 128 and 129: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
Page 130 and 131: defense Acqu s t on un vers ty web
Page 132: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
show all

Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?