21 Annual National Defense Industrial Association …...V10.0, 24/10/2018 Distribution Statement A:...

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. DOPSR Case #19-S-0011V10.0, 24/10/2018 Slide-0Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. DOPSR Case #19-S-0011

Mission Engineering:Evolving Acquisition to Support

the Warfighter

21st Annual National Defense Industrial Association Systems and Mission Engineering Conference

James Thompson

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Research and Engineering

October 24, 2018

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. DOPSR Case #19-S-0011V10.0, 24/10/2018 Slide-1

Pacing Mission Challenges

“Building upon our strengths and pursuing lethality, surprise,

and speed will help us become a mission-focused, innovative

Department that puts kill chains over systems, heterogeneity

over uniformity, and adaptability over doctrine. We will assess

capability gaps and needs by missions vs. system or Service,

and we will focus on outcome rather than process.”

— USD(R&E) Michael Griffin, June 2018


Shifting Acquisition Concerns – Capability vs. Platform

Schedule (agility) and performance (innovation) dominate current Defense perspective


Increasingly Complex, Compressing Battlespace

▪ The complexity of battlespace is increasingly complex:

− The number of combatants (red, blue and white) and their systems are increasing both in number and sophistication

▪ “Everything” is networked together to some extent

▪ The timeline of the battlespace is shrinking:

− Nano-second decision making is required

Complex

Dynamic

Instantaneous

Kinetic/Non-kinetic

EW-Cyber

Battlespace

The threat is evolving and invalidating our architecturesKey is to recognize these changing factors to better posture material solutions to

rapidly/seamlessly enter and exit the battlespace

Source: map.norsecorp.com/Source: https://culturalq.com/


Current Acquisition is Falling Short

▪ Acquisition is taking longer

▪ Acquisition “failures” are increasing (Nunn-McCurdy breaches)

▪ Acquisition delivery is increasingly irrelevant to current warfighter needs

Average Acquisition Cycle Time, MS B to MS C, 1969-2015

SAR Reporting Year ~ DASD(SE) Compilation of SAR reporting

Number of Critical and Significant Nunn-Mc-Curdy Breaches, 1997-2009

~ GAO Report, “DoD Cost Overruns”, 2011

5

10

15

20

0

SAR Reporting Year

We are working harder but achieving less and lessmust develop capability at the Speed of Relevance

The causes:

• Increasing complexity -- integration

and interdependencies

• Immature technology

• Monolithic expectations with

unrealistic schedules

• The mission has evolved


Conway’s Law

“Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure...”

~ Melvin Conway, 1967


▪ Acknowledgement that the battlespace is increasingly interconnected,

and so should Defense engineering

▪ Great end-effects can be achieved from less-than-great systems... or

even no systems

Department-Wide Realignment / Emphasis

Requirements

Systems

DepartmentIntegration

current reality

Bottom-up, Stove-piped

theory

Joint Concept of Operations

Joint Capabilities

Joint / Service Operating Concepts

Strategic Direction

▪ Acceptance of judicious risk to make

large gains

▪ Valuation of the speed & relevance of

delivery, balancing cost & performance

▪ Understanding that great engineering

cannot correct the shortfalls of an ill-

conceived framework architecture

We need to think enterprise-wide not just system-level


Department Re-Alignment / Emphasis

JCIDS Process change

▪ 2008-Present

▪ Goal: Synchronize JCIDS – DAS - PPBE

Added:

▪ Capability analysis

▪ More coordination steps

▪ Threat Intel input to Acq.

Redefined Acquisition process goal to better synchronize JCIDS – DAS – PPBE

Missions

Strategy / Policy

Capability Requirements

Doctrine / CONOPS / Future Concepts

Joint and Service Tasks

Resources

Intelligence

CML 3.0

Forces

Materiel: Acquisition & Sustainment

Materiel: Science & Technology / Research & Development

Missions

Doctrine / CONOPS / Future Concepts

Joint & Service Tasks

Capability Requirements

Forces

Material Solutions: S&T / R&D

Material Solutions: Acquisition & Sustainment

Resources

Th

rea

t In

telli

ge

nce

Strategy / PolicyCapability Mission

Lattice 3.0


Functions / Tasks / DoctrineCombatant Command Mission Planning / Operations

Policy /Strategic

Guidance

Materiel – Acquisition/Sustainment

SecArmy/Staff

CJCS/Joint Staff

Joint or Service Doctrine / CONOPS / Future Concepts

CSA/Army Staff

SecDef/OSD

Resources/Investment

Inte

lligen

ce (Threa

ts / Enviro

nm

en

t)

International Treaties/Alliances

Near Peer Competitors

RogueNations

Non-State Actors

WMD

Capability-MissionLattice 3.0

(Ends-Ways-Means)

USMC

USN

USA

USAF

FunctionalCCMDs

CSAs

Facilities

Train

ing / E

xercise

s

CapabilitySolutions

Force Elements /Providers

MFP

3

MFP

2

MFP

1

MFP

4

MFP

7

MFP 6

MFP 5

MFP

8

MFP

11

MFP

10

MFP

9

20 Feb 2018

PresidentialPolicy Directives

/ Orders

USNORTHCOM

USSOUTHCOM

USEUCOM

USAFRICOM

USCENTCOM

USPACOM

USSOCOM

USTRANSCOM

USSTRATCOM

USCYBERCOM

Integrated Security C

onstructs

Defen

se Plan

ning Scenario

s

OP

LAN

s / CO

NPLA

Ns / C

ON

OPS

Materiel – Science & Technology / Research & Development

Prototyping & Experimentation

Applied ResearchBasic Research

Joint or Service Tasks

Pe

rson

ne

l / Org

aniza

tion

s

Lead

ership

/ Ed

uca

tion

Congressional Legislation SecNav/Staff

CNO/OPNAV Staff CMC/HQMC Staff

SecAF/Staff

CSAF/Air Staff

Logistics/Sustainment

IT/Cyber SystemsSpace SystemsSea SystemsLand Systems Air Systems

Joint Capability Areas/Portfolios

1.0

: Force

Sup

po

rt

2.0

: Ba

ttlespa

ce A

wa

ren

ess

3.0

: Force

Ap

plica

tion

4.0

: Logistics

5.0

: Co

mm

an

d

and

Co

ntro

l

6.0

: Co

mm

s and

C

om

pu

ters

7.0

: Pro

tectio

n

8.0

: Bu

ildin

gP

artne

rship

s

9.0

: Co

rpo

rate

Ma

nage

men

t

Capability Gaps defined as any

Requirement-to-Solution Mismatch

(Performance and/or Quantity)

CapabilityRequirements

METOC(Terrestrial)

Space Weather

EM Environment

MFP

12

O&MPROC

RDT&E

MILPERSMILCON

Requirements/Gaps matching to tech in need of TMRR

Critical In

telligence

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Intelligence Mission Data

Requirements/Gaps matching to tech

ready for EMD

Supply of Capability Solutions

Su

pp

ly o

f Re

sou

rces

for CapabilitiesSupply of Resources for Ops/Readiness

Supply of Forces(Global Force Management)

Request for (existing) Forces

(Global Force Management)

Assess tasks against

applicable threats/

conditions

Op

eration

al/Tactical In

tel P

rod

ucts

Strategic IntelProducts

Decompose functions into tasks

Decompose missions into

functions

Tech Opportunities

Quantified tasks not serviceable by existing forces lead to new Capability Requirements


JCIDS Process change

▪ 2008-Present

▪ Goal: Synchronize JCIDS – DAS - PPBE

Added:

▪ Capability analysis

▪ More coordination steps

▪ Threat Intel input to Acq.

Improved but didn’t solve means to manage technical tradeoffs and risks

▪ Short, Med. Long term

▪ ID areas of divestment

Redefined Acquisition process goal to better synchronize JCIDS – DAS – PPBE



Mission Engineering: Formalizes that engineering rigor and technical insight is key to informing the tradeoffs and risks taken earlier in the Mission-Capability decision

Traditional Systems Engineering

• Focused on system implementation

• Integrate engineering as part of Mission

Capability Analysis

• Inform of technical/technology tradeoffs

more frequently

• Integrate technical assessments to address

mission, technology, manufacturing,

schedule realism, dynamic threat

• Tightened communications and analysis

Mission Engineering

Shift focus to capability

implementation & integration


Mission Engineering

Mission Engineering is –

▪ Disciplined translation of mission needs into a ENTERPRISE MISSION

ARCHITECTURE providing the foundation to subsequently develop solution architectures and field systems

▪ SYNCHRONIZATION of solution architectures and system dependencies to achieve the enterprise mission architecture and meet the mission need

▪ Champion CAPABILITY-ENABLING TECHNICAL PRACTICES across the department to enable more relevant, timely, and agile solution architectures and systems

▪ Authoritative identification of TECHNICAL RISK, OPPORTUNITIES, and DATA-DRIVEN INSIGHT to address decisions at all levels: chief engineer, PM, decision authority

ME focus is: Enterprise-level architectures, interdependencies, enabling practices and authoritative technical insight


Improve Management of Interdependencies

Operational Capability of M-code PNT

Space Components

Control Components

User Equipment

Components

4-year gap between deployed satellite capability and battle-space ability to use M-Code

Improved synchronization and dependency management is critical

▪ Synchronize acquisition program sequencing and timelines

▪ Synchronize / align shared dependencies and interfaces

Dependencies between programs are

not universally tracked and carry

hidden risks; improved insight across

all ACAT-levels is needed

Shared Dependencies

GPS Architecture

1 Yr.

3 Years

Total 4 Year Gap


EFFECTS WEB

Emphasize End-to-End Mission Effects

Optimize enterprise effects vs. platform effects

• In today’s acquisition process, programs are matured independently

• System-of-systems integration occurs when delivered


Practice Systems Engineering Excellence

Evolution

Operations

Maintenance

Mission Level

(SoS) Validation

Concept of

Operations

Mission Requirements

(Supportability);

Mission Arch.

Mission Analysis & EngineeringMission Integration Managers

Provides Engineering, Programmatic & Investment Decision

Support

Systems

Components

Program Implementation

Portfolio of Platforms

Derived

PlatformRequirements

Derived SystemBehaviors

Derived

Sub-SystemRequirements

Aggregated

PlatformValidation

Aggregated

SystemValidation

Sub-SystemValidation

Service-Specific Mission Decomposition

Systems

Components



Derived



Derived


Aggregated

PlatformValidation

Aggregated

SystemValidation



Systems

Components



Derived



Derived


Aggregated

PlatformValidation

Aggregated

SystemValidation



Systems

Components



Derived



Derived


Aggregated

PlatformValidation

Aggregated

SystemValidation



Extend engineering rigor & analysis to impacts across mission threads

New

Rein

vig

ora

tion o

f

Syste

ms E

ngin

ee

ring


Gap

Mission Engineering Enterprise Planning –Multiple Services, Multiple Domains

Mission Engineering

Threats

CONOPs/ CONEMPS

Time-Phased Tasks

Dependencies

Cost/Schedule Constraints

Enterprise Goals

Needs Decomposed

to Time-Phased

Functional Model

Mission Needs

Opportunities

Analysis & Gap

Identification

Gap Trade-space

Analysis &

Decision

Reference Mission

Enterprise

Architecture

AVs

CVs

OVs

PVs

SVs

Modify Existing

Programs

Start Gap-Filler

Programs

Rapid Prototypes &

Tech Investment

Develop Solution

Architectures

Synchronize

Dependencies

Improve velocity through the use of digital models in a digital environment

AVs CVs OVs SVs

▪Requirements

Refinement

▪Rapid

Prototype

▪Technology

Development

▪New

ProcurementProgram

A

Program

B

Gap

Joint Requirements Legacy Programs Technology / Prototypes Integration Models Enabling Eng. Tools

Enabling

Engineering and

Integration



ENGINEERING

LEVELDESCRIPTOR TIMELINE EXAMPLE

COMPONENT

Within

constraints

CONTINUOUS DELIVERY of capability

developed and acquired in the context

of recognized constraints

<1-2

Years

BLOCK

Trading

constraints

ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT delivering

“Minimum Viable Product”

~3-4

Years

PLATFORM

Evolving

constraints

RE-STRUCTURE and SEQUENCE

platforms to optimize the trades made

in the previous two levels ...

• Avoid 30-year monolithic acquisitions

• Buy 100 before committing to 1000s

~5-10

Years

EPOCH

Redefined

constraints

RE-DEFINE THE FRAMEWORK

ARCHITECTURE; achieve next level of

performance

>10-15

Years

Next generation – shift from component-block to platform-epoch focus

UCAS

Block 40

LANTIRN Pod

Block 50

F110; JDAM

F-16 Block 25

GP

S

~24 S

AT

S

GE

O

Next-

Gen

nK

SA

TS

LE

O

Value Speed of Delivery at All Levels/Spirals

Manned vs. Artificial Intelligence

Non-space-based PNT

HMMWV

MRAP JLTV

Em

ph

as

is:

19

80

s-2

015

Em

ph

as

is:

20

15

-F

utu

re


Research Epoch Changers – Redefine Framework Architecture

▪ The next conflict may be an evolution on our current capability …

▪ But the next war will be fought in a way just barely considered today

Maintaining relevance by changing the rules of the game, or playing a different game altogether

RE-DEFINE THE FRAMEWORK

ARCHITECTURE; achieve next

level of performance


Deriving a Reference Enterprise Mission Architecture for the Space Domain


“Space Architecture

Study Initiative”-- ASD(R&E), 2018

From JCIDS Manual

• Phase I− Real-Time Space Situational

Awareness

• Phase II–X− The Other Mission Areas

Space Missions’

Reference Architecture(s)


VELOCITY RELEVANCE

• CONTINUOUS CAPABILITY DELIVERY • ARCHITECTURES

− Sequence – ARCI-Model

− Appropriate vs. Innovate

− Automation

− Common Production Environments

− Enterprise Optimization

− End-to-End Effects

− Grand Scales / Unified Architectures = Challenges

− Reduce Complexity

− Loosely Coupled / Tightly Integrated, and Vice Versa

• MINIMUM VIABLE PRODUCT (MVP) • PRESERVING OPTIONS

− Iterative Development

− Pre-Planned Product Improvement

− Pre-Planned Obsolescence

− Right-Sizing

− Improve Program Scoping and Metrics

− Prototyping

− Manage Acceptable Risk – Failure Tolerance

− JCTDs

− Technology Insertion

− De-couple – Hardware / Software

− Technical Readiness

• REDUCING LATENCY • MULTI-FUNCTIONALITY / RESILIENCE

− Evolve Acquisition Processes

− Data-Driven Decision Making

− Communities of Practice

− Credibility in Engineering Planning

− Interdependencies – Mission Threads

− Evolve Requirements Processes

− Modularity – Programs, Frameworks, Architectures

− Cyber / Security Resiliency

Addressing the Challenge – Acquisition at the Speed of Relevance

Factors impacting …


Foster Continuous Delivery Scalable Architecture,

Modularity & Coupling

From To

Avoid Monolithic Approaches Promote Experimentation / Prototyping

Delivery architecture and prototyping are key to timely, relevant capability delivery

Key Enabling ME Approaches


Enabling Processes & Tools

Need academia/industry’s help -- improved insights on data-driven capability decisions

• Evolve SE practice

• Independent Technical Risk Assessments (ITRA)

• Risk / Opportunity Management

• Modeling & Simulation

• Modularity – MOSA

• Should-Schedule Analysis

• Data Transparency

• Digital Engineering -- Model Based Systems Engineering

• Architecture Analysis

• Interdependency / Interface Mgt.

• Measures of Resiliency

• Other tools to abstract the appropriate data to leadership decisions

• Next Generation Threat System (e.g., ONR Strike Group Defender)

• Virtual World Visualization Software

• Architecture Management Integration Environment - open interfaces and integration for simulation models/analysis tools (e.g., Magic Draw Suite, Rational Rhapsody, DOORS)

• Standalone / Networked Tools - DREN / SDREN, Joint Sim Environment / NSWC Dahlgren Division Ship Labs, Army Labs, etc.

• MBSE and SE integration in SYSML, RSA, etc.

• Improved Data Analytics / Tools

• Robust Cyber Effects (Offensive / Defensive) Modeling

What We Do Now What We Need to Be Able to Do Better


Modeling & Simulation

Key Enabling ME Processes & Tools

Independent Risk

Assessment and

Risk &

Opportunity

Management

ME Capability Framework

Modular, Open Systems Approach

(MOSA)

Refinement of existing tools is needed


▪ How do we accelerate mission need to mission delivery?

▪ What are the technical measures, metrics, & data to track technical progress toward mission capability vs. traditional specs?

▪ How do we synchronize interdependent acquisitions regardless of ACAT level? How do we manage dependencies?

▪ How do we preserve more solution options later in the acquisition cycle?

▪ How do we set mission performance requirements to promote SoS–centric vs. platform-centric solutions?

▪ How do you incentivize mission "ilities" – survivability, modularity, adaptability, availability, resiliency, security?

▪ How do we evaluate candidate solution architectures under a mission reference architecture? What are the models?

▪ What are industry standards for data/products to improve communication/integration? How do others access that information?

▪ How do we address IP issues to facilitate collaboration?

▪ How do we acquire common operating systems and architectures separate from platforms?

▪ What tools better enable cross-mission dependency and gap analysis?

Way Ahead: Challenges for DoD and Industry

As a community we need to better address operational mission performance in acquisition


DoD Research and Engineering Enterprise

Solving Problems Today – Designing Solutions for Tomorrow

Defense Innovation Marketplacehttps://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil

DoD Research and Engineering Enterprise https://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/

Twitter@DoDInnovation


Mr. James Thompson

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Research and Engineering

571-372-6160

[email protected]

For Additional Information

21 Annual National Defense Industrial Association …...V10.0, 24/10/2018 Distribution Statement A:...

Documents

Transcript of 21 Annual National Defense Industrial Association …...V10.0, 24/10/2018 Distribution Statement A:...