The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 5.2.4.1 Maintainability <strong>of</strong> System When bringing in a new technology into a system, factors such as system maintenance need to be considered. With the focus on Network Enabled Capabilities (NEC) some authors have raised concerns over the reliance upon IT support pr<strong>of</strong>essionals in keeping military systems running. It has been suggested that the DoD’s recruitment and retention <strong>of</strong> IT pr<strong>of</strong>essionals has been ‘so ineffective in recent years that a working group chaired by the Under Secretary <strong>of</strong> Defense for Personnel and Readiness is addressing the issue. <strong>The</strong>re is no solution in sight. DoD cannot now conduct normal IT operations well, let alone surge to support a national emergency or deal with attacks’ [57]. Current government procurements <strong>of</strong> large, complex systems emphasise the use <strong>of</strong> COTS products because they <strong>of</strong>fer four main advantages. First, COTS products demonstrate feasibility prior to start <strong>of</strong> development. <strong>The</strong>y virtually eliminate development risk. In many cases, it is possible to ‘try before buying’ and select the ‘best’ implementation from among competing products. COTS products also <strong>of</strong>fer ‘higher quality implementations <strong>of</strong> functions than do custom-developed systems’. This is because COTS products are usually tested across multiple systems, and there is usually considerable effort on the part <strong>of</strong> the developers to maintain and improve the quality <strong>of</strong> the product. By eliminating the need to develop components, COTS products enable shorter development schedules for new systems. <strong>The</strong> final advantage is that the development costs for COTS products are ‘amortized over large numbers <strong>of</strong> systems, thereby reducing the cost to each user’ [58]. This cost reduction continues throughout the life cycle as bug fixes and enhancements are incorporated into upgrades. It is ‘important to recognise’ that the above advantages ‘do not occur automatically’ when COTS products are used. Each system’s architecture and product selections need to be carefully tailored in order to avoid the numerous potential pitfalls that can dilute the above advantages. Others have identified the need to pay careful attention to component obsolescence when selecting electronic equipment. <strong>The</strong> speed <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> electronics hardware has risen dramatically and those involved in the maintenance <strong>of</strong> military platforms face the problem that by the time the platform is complete, many <strong>of</strong> its sub systems and components would be ‘at best obsolete, and probably no longer in production. By the time the US Navy fielded the Aegis weapon system in 1978, over half <strong>of</strong> the hardware used was no longer available.’ Several authors have highlighted the risks associated with the use <strong>of</strong> COTS electronics, which are not designed to cope with the demanding environments and rugged treatment that military systems encounter. As Langley [58] describes, the classic mil-spec procurement method meant that the government financed the development <strong>of</strong> a product that had to be rugged enough for military use. ‘<strong>The</strong> government owned and controlled the design, but paid a high penalty in time and money.’ While problems <strong>of</strong> COTS ruggedisation are not insurmountable, they do need to be considered before technologies are inserted into military systems. Designs that use COTS products must consider the harsh environments in which these commercial devices may 17
HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 be used. Many COTS suppliers <strong>of</strong>fer hardware built to meet greater levels <strong>of</strong> heat, cold or vibration. Such ruggedised hardware may use commercial parts that are able to withstand extremes <strong>of</strong> heat, cold and humidity, or can be qualified to do so. Evidence suggests that the selection <strong>of</strong> technologies for insertion into systems and platforms must consider wider issues than initial cost, performance and capability [59]. Technologies must be able to cope with demanding military contexts, and there must be systems in place to provide technical support to ensure capabilities are maintained. If sufficient technical support cannot be provided or is prohibitive, decisions are needed over whether complex technologies, such as those used in NEC, are appropriate or sufficiently reliable. <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> widely accepted commercial standards for interfaces and architectures helped support the acceptance <strong>of</strong> COTS as effective military equipment solutions. <strong>The</strong>se standards allowed the creation <strong>of</strong> open systems interfaces and architectures that were public domain rather than company propriety. Open standards, free to use by hardware manufacturers encourage competition between s<strong>of</strong>tware and hardware vendors. This encourages the development <strong>of</strong> other products, using the same architecture, making it relatively easy to switch from one vendor to another. One disadvantage <strong>of</strong> using COTS equipment is the rapid pace <strong>of</strong> product development. New s<strong>of</strong>tware and hardware can be introduced at intervals ranging from a few years to less than a year. Procurers have to consider that whilst COTS products may <strong>of</strong>fer better performance, they may not be rugged enough for use in military applications. Mature COTS items that have been tested and used by the commercial market are more likely to be suitable for military designs, but consequently may be more prone to obsolescence issues by the time the system is fielded. When a new version <strong>of</strong> a COTS product is released this can also be problematic as it may mean that the older product, which was procured, will not be supported by the vendor for much longer. Military systems are typically required to have a service life <strong>of</strong> 20 years or more and by using COTS equipment additional risks to reliability and supportability emerge. <strong>The</strong> system designer must be prepared to face COTS obsolescence problems during development, production and service life. Given the slow timescales <strong>of</strong> military development programmes, it is possible that components or s<strong>of</strong>tware chosen early in development may no longer be available, or no longer supported, when the system reaches production. <strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> approaches to solving the component obsolescence problem, including making a one <strong>of</strong>f ‘lifetime’ buy <strong>of</strong> all the hardware which will be needed for the predicted production run and for spares. This ‘is a workable system but may not fit with procurement funding. It effectively locks the customer to a given level <strong>of</strong> performance, and denies them the cost savings that might come from declining prices’. [58] Another approach is for the supplier to enter into an agreement with component and subsystem vendors asking for prior notice <strong>of</strong> the forthcoming obsolescence <strong>of</strong> any key component. This allows the end user a last chance to buy components, but it relies heavily upon individual vendors fulfilling their agreement to warn <strong>of</strong> upcoming item obsolescence. Langley argues that product availability is an important consideration when looking at COTS products. Vendors <strong>of</strong>ten sell products that are coming to market in the near future and new products can <strong>of</strong>ten arrive late and sometimes may not arrive at all. Similarly Langley warns that customers have very little control over vendor schedules, product capabilities, or product availability and should plan accordingly. 18
Page 1 and 2: The Impact
Page 3 and 4: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 21: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 73 and 74:
HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87:
show all

The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?