Changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to ......Changing the value equation in...

© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University

Changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to align systems of systems with dynamic mission needs: The Value Stairs

Philip Boxer, Suzanne Garcia, William Anderson, Pat Kirwan

October 21st 2008

2

The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University

Agenda

The demand for agilityManaging alignmentCreating value for the defense enterpriseChanging the value equation

3


Modernization AND Stability/Counterinsurgency

I’ve spent much of the last year talking about irregular or asymmetric warfaretalking about irregular or asymmetric warfare, and making the argument in favor of institutionalizing counterinsurgency skills, and our ability to institutionalizing counterinsurgency skills, and our ability to conduct stability and support conduct stability and support operationsoperations. The need for the state of the art systems – particularly longer range capabilities – will never go away, as we strive to offset the countermeasures being developed by other nations. But at a certain point, given the types of situations we are likely to face, it begs the question whether specialized, often relatively low-tech equipment for stability and counterinsurgency missions is also needed.

•• How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities –– and the ability to get them fielded quicklyand the ability to get them fielded quickly?•• Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process to develop counter-IED technologies, to build

MRAPs, and to quickly expand our ISR capability? In short, why did we have to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities we need to protect our troops and pursue the wars we are in?

Our conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solutiOur conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solution in yearson in years. Stability and Stability and counterinsurgency missions counterinsurgency missions –– the wars we are in the wars we are in –– require 75 percent solutions in monthsrequire 75 percent solutions in months.

•• The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds theThe challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to se two different paradigms can be made to coexist.coexist.

• The issue then becomes how we build this kind of innovative thinking and flexibility into our rigid procurement processes here at home. The key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drThe key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drives the ives the procurement, rather than the other way aroundprocurement, rather than the other way around.

I believe we must do this. The two models can I believe we must do this. The two models can –– and do and do –– coexist. coexist.

Extracted from speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2008http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1279

4


There are three diverging tempos

Defence Enterprise

Effect

DemandAcquisition

TempoAlignment

Tempo

Adapted from: Appropriate Collaboration and Appropriate Competition in C4ISTAR Transformation, Dr Nicholas Whittall RUSI 2007

Campaign Tempo

Gap = NeedAcquisition

Composite Capability

Capability

Capability

Capability

Orchestration

TrainingEquipment

PeopleInformation

DoctrineOrganisationInfrastructure

Logistics

Suppliers

Capability

Requirement

‘Arms-length’ or ‘smart’ Defense Companies await Requirements expressed in

Programmes.

Competitive advantage to be gained in aligning the Need to the

Demand.

Competitive advantage is gained by aligning the Composite

Capabilities to the Demand.

Divergence of tempos increases costs of

alignment

Divergence of tempos increases costs of costs of

alignmentalignment

5


The divergence of tempos challenges the supplier to support Type III Agility

Supplier Alignment

Competitive

Collaborative

Type 1+ AgilityDirected

Composition

Workarounds, UORs, etc

Type 2 AgilityCentre-driven Collaboration

Design for Integration

Type 3 AgilityEdge-driven

Collaboration

Design for Flexibility

(Supporting SoS extensibility)

Type 1 AgilityDirected

Composition

Traditional or ‘Smart’ Engineering

The C4ISTAR Sector net-

enabled journey

Operational AlignmentAnticipated Unanticipated

Integrate what we have

Contingency Planning

Derived from ‘The Double Challenge’, in Boxer, P.J. et al. (2008) SoS Navigator 2.0: A Context-Based Approach to System-of-Systems Challenges (CMU/SEI-2008-TN-001). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2008. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/08.reports/08tn001.html

6


Agenda


7


The approach to alignment is ‘stratified’

Defence Enterprise

Effect

DemandAcquisition

TempoAlignment

Tempo Campaign Tempo

Gap = NeedAcquisition

Composite Capability

Capability

Capability

Capability

Orchestration

TrainingEquipment

PeopleInformation

DoctrineOrganisationInfrastructure

Logistics

Suppliers

Capability

Requirement

The WHYThe WHY: Decisive Points in

Campaign Strategy

The WHO (in relation to) The WHO (in relation to) WHOMWHOM: Force Structure and Mission Command

The WHATThe WHAT: Equipment

The HOWThe HOW: Fielded

Equipment and Force Elements

This alignment is This alignment is ‘‘StratifiedStratified’’

Capability Alignment (to Alignment Tempo)

underlying technologies

ultimate effects

8


The Zachman framework

assumes a static definition of the

Enterprise

The divergence of these tempos creates new challenges for the Defense Enterprise

Where does the role of the supplier fit in?

Supplier Alignment

Competitive

Collaborative


Composition





Collaboration


(Supporting SoSextensibility)


Composition



Operational Alignment

(to Campaign Tempo)

Supplier Alignment

(to Acquisition Tempo)

What kinds of agility are needed from suppliers?

Capability Alignment

(to Alignment Tempo)What kinds of value

equation are involved here?

9


Source of coloured squares: Zachman Framework, www.zifa.com

SCOPE(Competitive context)

Planning

BUSINESS MODEL

(Conceptual) Owning

SYSTEM MODEL(Logical)

Designing

TECHNOLOGY MODEL(Physical) Building

DETAILED REPRESENTATION

S(out-of-modeling-context)

Subcontracting

DATA (WHAT) e.g. data

MOTIVATION (WHY)

e.g. strategy

TIME (WHEN)

e.g. schedule

PEOPLE (WHO)

e.g. organisation

NETWORK (WHERE)

e.g. network

FUNCTION (HOW)

e.g. function

The WHY: Decisive Points

The HOW: Tier 1 Primes and Unified Customer

The WHAT: Equipment,

Platforms etc

The WHO/M: Mission Command of Force Structure

COLLABORATIVE MODEL

(Collaboration) Governance

Multiple Enterprises

Multiple Enterprises

USE CONTEXT (WHO for WHOM)

e.g. particular client

Relation to demand

cohesion

Cohesion in relation to

demand/threat situation

EVENT (WHAT)

e.g. things done

Representation of the physical

reality

Representation of the physical

reality


(to Alignment Tempo)

10


Supplier Alignment

Competitive

Collaborative


Composition





Collaboration




Composition



The divergence of these tempos creates new challenges* for the Defense Enterprise


(to Campaign Tempo)

Supplier Alignment




How does the DoD generate the requisite variety of operational behaviours?

How does the role of the supplier fit in?


* For more on these, see Boxer, P.J. (2008) SoS Navigator Principles for Sustaining Dynamic Alignment: The Example of U. S. Army Acquisition Strategies and Operational Realities, Special Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2008-SR-027, September 2008

11


Agenda


12


Value for Defense comes from managing a Double ‘V’

Requirement Solution

System components

Design decomposition

System integration

The cycle creating value for Defence.

Geometries-of-use

1

2

3

4

5

6Military Effects

Composite Capabilities

Joint Command

Force Command Structure and Composite Capabilities

Scenarios and Campaign Plans

Force Elementplus DOTMLPF =Capability gap

minus DOTMLPF =

demand-side

supply-side

Boxer, P.J. (2007) Managing the SoS Value Cycle, January 2007, http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/85

13


demand-side

supply-side

Engineering constraints

Pragmatic constraints

This double ‘V’ is layered, spanning the three different kinds of tempo

Campaign Tempo

1

2

3

4

5

6Decisive Points

Joint Command

Agile Force Structure

Force Element

Fielded Equipment

Equipment

Alignment Tempo

Acquisition Tempo

The WHAT

The HOW

The WHO (in relation to) WHOM

The WHY

The nature of this overlap depends on the engineering

constraints being underunder--determining*determining*

Equipment

Fielded Equipment

Force Elements


Synchronization

Effects

* Boxer, P.J. (2008) Framework Architectures, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, June 2008

14


demand-side

supply-side

Pragmatic constraints

These contexts-of-use have to be related to the individual capabilities

VarietyVariety of Scenarios

Many-to-many composition

Mission Mission TaskingTaskingDemandDemand for Composite Capabilities

Orchestration of Orchestration of geometriesgeometries--ofof--useuse

Campaign Campaign PlanningPlanningDemandDemand for Synchronization

Effects ladders

Boxer, P.J. et al (2008) “Systems-of-Systems Engineering and the Pragmatics of Demand,” Proceedings of the Second Annual IEEE Systems Conference pp107. Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 7−10, 2008. IEEE, 2008. http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=4518971&arnumber=4519030&count=89&index=58

Force Elements

SupplySupply of Force Elements


5: Joint Command

Effects

Synchronization

6: Decisive Points

4: Agile Force Structure

Destroy Fuel

Reserve

Destroy Bridge 1

Destroy Bridge 2

Reverse River

Crossing

Halt Second EchelonDestroy

Enemy Will

Win the War

Traffic Density Units in BivouacAcceleration of

Straggler Count

River Clear

DMPI 1 DMPI 2

Carpet Bomb

Drop Leaflets

Effects LadderEffects Ladder

15


Adding the socio-technical perspective in relation to demand extends the analytical space

Information view

Synchronisation view

Equipment viewOrganisation view

Effects view

Socio-technical SoS = SoS foundation + Organization +

Synchronization views

SoS foundation = Equipment and

Information views

The analysis puts the Socio-technical SoS

in relation to an Effects View

16


This leads to a different kind of analysis of interoperability…

Source: Anderson, Boxer & Browsword (2006) An Examination of a Structural Modeling Risk Probe Technique, Special Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2006-SR-017, October 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/06.reports/06sr017.html

Special permission to use PAN in this Technical Probe was granted by Boxer Research Limited.

Identifying Interoperability Gaps in the different strata

Analysis of Stratification

Socio-technical SoS in relation to Demand

Functional Functional CouplingCoupling

Demand Demand cohesioncohesion

Accountability Accountability HierarchiesHierarchies

Distinguishing three different kinds of path

1services

know‐how

7 drivers

7b

problem domains

6demand situations

mission situations

5b

5

composition of

orchestrated constituent capabilities

orchestrations of constituent capabilities 4b

constituent capabilities

4

2b

3b

2outcomes 3

1c

super‐structure

1b

direct organisation

0processes

events

6bdata fusion platforms

Analyzing alignment of strata

17


Agenda


18


demand-side

supply-side

Spanning the layers means managing different kinds of value equations

Campaign Tempo

1

2

3

4

5

6Decisive Points

Mission Command


Force Element

Fielded Equipment

Equipment

Alignment Tempo

Acquisition Tempo

Supplier

Type 1

Unified Customer + Supplier

Type 2

Military Command + Unified Customer + Supplier

Type 3

19


The Value Stairs: a progressive development of the value equation model

2Fielded Equipment

Purchaser pre-contractualType I Through

Life-cycle (of equipment or platform)

Arms-length

1

2

3

‘Smart’

Provider subcontracted

Defense Equipment & Support

4

5

6

3

4

5

6

Force Element

Decisive Points

Mission Command


‘Above the customer strategy ceiling’

‘strategy ceiling’

1Equipment

Provider Contract

The purchaser is buying:The purchaser is buying:

Defense Equipment

20



2Fielded Equipment



Arms-length

1

2

3

4

5

6

Military Capability across DOTMLPF

Type II Through-Life (equipment- or

platform-based)Capability

TLAM (availability

management)

Operational Military Capability

TLCM (capability

management)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Potential for open-sourcing

1

2

3

‘Smart’



4

5

6

3

4

5

6

Force Element

Decisive Points

Mission Command




1Equipment

Provider Contract


Defense Equipment

21



2Fielded Equipment



Arms-length

1

2

3

4

5

6

Military Capability across DOTMLPF

Operational Mission Capability

1

2

3

4

5

6

Type II Through-Life (equipment- or

platform-based)Capability

TLAM (availability

management)

Operational Military Capability

TLCM (capability

management)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Potential for open-sourcing

1

2

3

‘Smart’



4

5

6

3

4

5

6

Force Element

Decisive Points

Mission Command




1Equipment

Provider Contract


Defense Equipment

The ‘plus’ in TLCM+ indicates that what is being supplied is a SoS the definition of

which is not equipment-based or platform-based

TLCM+

Type III Through-Life CompositeCompositeCapability

22


Supplier Alignment

Competitive

Collaborative


Composition





Collaboration




Composition



The value equation must evolve as the demand for the variety of operational behaviors changes


(to Campaign Tempo)

Supplier Alignment




How does the role of the supplier fit in?


The value equation changes with the nature of the demand*

How does the DoD generate the requisite variety of operational behaviours?

* See Boxer, P.J. (2008) What Price Agility? Managing Through-Life Purchaser-Provider Relationships on the Basis of the Ability to Price Agility, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, September 2008

23


Making the two models coexistTalking about irregular or asymmetric Talking about irregular or asymmetric warfare and institutionalizing warfare and institutionalizing counterinsurgency skillscounterinsurgency skills, ……

•• How do we institutionalize procurement How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities of such capabilities –– and the ability to and the ability to get them fielded quicklyget them fielded quickly?

•• Why do we have to go outside the normal Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process?bureaucratic process?

……The challenge is whether in our The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to different paradigms can be made to coexist.coexist.

•• The key is to make sure that the strategy The key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drives the and risk assessment drives the procurement, rather than the other way procurement, rather than the other way aroundaround.

……. . Extracted from speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2008

• These forms of warfare, skills and abilities demand Type III Agility.

• This means modernization ‘+’, in which– Campaign Strategy and

Interoperability Risk Assessment drive procurement.

– The full Double ‘V’ cycle is managed to create value for Defense.

– Suppliers support different value equation models on the value stairs depending on the nature of the demand.

24


Contact Information

Philip Boxer

Research, Technology and Systems Solutions Program,Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

Email: [email protected]

Mail:Software Engineering Institute4500 Fifth AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15213-2612 USA

25


Abstract

1. New kinds of threat and much wider varieties of demand on mission capabilities are requiring the military to achieve unprecedented levels of agility and responsiveness, and are driving the transformation of military capabilities. 2. The great benefit of net-enablement in this new strategic environment is that it enables mission capabilities to be orchestrated and composed from constituent capabilities within the context of systems of systems.3. The presentation will outline three essential ways in which the foundational nature of the systems engineering task needs to be transformed to take advantage of these new possibilities, and will use examples from various military contexts to illustrate their applicability.

• First, the definition of systems-of-interest also has to give an explicit account of the contexts-of-use from which emerge new forms of demand for mission capability.

• Second, the definition of systems-of-interest has to be extended to include their socio-technical nature. • Third, it has to be possible to analyze how these new forms of demand translate into new patterns of interoperability

(geometries-of-use) across systems of systems, thus defining the agility of systems of systems in terms of the required varieties of geometry-of-use that they must support.

4. The presentation will conclude by considering the impact this has on the suppliers’ role, the acquisition process, and in particular the changes it introduces into how value is defined.

26


NO WARRANTY THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN “AS-IS" BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.Use of any trademarks in this presentation is not intended in any way to infringe on the rights of the trademark holder.

This Presentation may be reproduced in its entirety, without modification, and freely distributed in written or electronic form without requesting formal permission. Permission is required for any other use. Requests for permission should be directed to the Software Engineering Institute at [email protected].

This work was created in the performance of Federal Government Contract Number FA8721-05-C-0003 with Carnegie Mellon University for the operation of the Software Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center. The Government of the United States has a royalty-free government-purpose license to use, duplicate, or disclose the work, in whole or in part and in any manner, and to have or permit others to do so, for government purposes pursuant to the copyright license under the clause at 252.227-7013.

Changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to ......Changing the value equation in...

Documents

Transcript of Changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to ......Changing the value equation in...