A Technical History of the SEI

Defining the education component of the work was more straightforward, although deciding on
what activities would best support the mission was a bit harder. It became clear that these activities
can easily intersect with technology transition and direct support.
In one sense, defining the direct support component of the charter was straightforward because
there were models from the system engineering FFRDCs. It was trickier to select specific work
for the SEI, however, because it needed to meet at least the following three constraints:
1. not compete with the work of other FFRDCs or with industry
2. further the SEI goals of developing an understanding of DoD needs while supporting the transition
work
3. not simply providing bodies to do what others can do
The balance of work was also complicated by the fact that since 20 percent of the SEI line work
was to be in direct support, some program offices began to see it as an opportunity to get free
help. The Air Force program manager, therefore, began to encourage the SEI to migrate its direct
support work from line funding to funding provided by DoD program offices seeking assistance.
Such work was guided initially by Technical Objectives and Plans Statements (TO&P)—now
called Project Work Statements (PWS)—subject to the original three constraints. Over time, the
demand for PWS work has grown significantly, so the original balance envisioned soon became
impractical. Likewise, the SEI was encouraged by the SEI program manager to assist other U.S.
government agencies under TO&P/PWS funding. Funding from these agencies not only permits
the SEI to apply its technical solutions more broadly, but also enables the SEI to develop capabilities
that can be applied to the DoD.
The SEI soon realized that these components of the mission were not as cleanly delineated as their
definitions might imply, and the percentages soon became notional guidelines. As the demand for
TO&P/PWS work increased, the percentage of direct support dominated the mix of work.
Moreover, while all TO&P/PWS work was in direct support of the mission of the sponsoring
organization, not all fit into the original category of direct support. Indeed, some agencies used
TO&P/PWS to sponsor research. The term “direct support” eventually gave way to the more
appropriate “technical support.”
Evolution of the Effort Composition Was Driven by Experience and
Guidance from the Principal Sponsor
The SEI interpretation and evolution of its charter has, and continues to be, conducted in close coordination
with the DoD and defense industry. The DoD, which has played an active role under
the management of the principal sponsor, also seeks input from industry and academia. For instance,
in 1994 DARPA initiated a blue ribbon panel review of the SEI operation, before initiating
contract renewal activities, to confirm that the SEI was fulfilling the intended mission and was
continuing to evolve to meet DoD needs. The resulting panel report praised the SEI contributions
to DoD, endorsed renewal of the contract, and reiterated the need for technology transition [DoD
1994].This comprehensive review process has been continued every five years as part of the contract
renewal process.
Following the model of MIT Lincoln Laboratory, oversight of the SEI has been provided by a
Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) consisting of senior executives from the Office of the Secretary
CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 8
Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited