Transitioning Systems Engineering Research into Programs ... · 30 Oct 2014 . Transitioning Systems...
Transcript of Transitioning Systems Engineering Research into Programs ... · 30 Oct 2014 . Transitioning Systems...
30 Oct 2014
Transitioning Systems Engineering Research into Programs and Practice
NDIA 17th SE Annual Conference 2014
Presented by: Lisa Graf, PM RDECOM Integrated Systems Engineering Framework (ISEF)
2
Transitioning Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) Into Practical Application
Wayne State University and
TARDEC/RDECOM Effort
Systems Engineering Research Co-Development With and Transition to End-Users
• Collaboration between WSU/SERC and TARDEC/RDECOM
• Goal: Develop practical and relevant risk leading indicators – Credible and sensible – Based on evidence/data available in a timely manner – Point to mitigation actions to reduce risk exposure – Consistent with PMO perspectives on system development maturity
and risk tradeoffs
• Approach – Co-develop with risk managers and TARDEC risk management team – Use evidence from data in standard CDRL items and reporting
requirements – Base risk leading indictors on (1) evaluation criteria and development
program maturity indicators and risk considerations in representative RFPs, (2) NDIA system development leading indicators, and (3) GAO guidelines and best practices
– Pilot on a current Program of Record (“on hold” while the program is in source selection)
Systems Engineering Research Co-Development with and Transition to End-Users
• An Early Contribution – RFP clearly viewed development maturity as primary criteria to address
risk
– Contract reporting did not provide data to track maturity advancement against actual and planned time and cost
– Lack of information creates risk exposure
– SE R&D produced a method to link maturity advancement stages, cost and schedule reporting using the standard reporting tools and requirements
– Converted RFP maturity advancement stages to IMP events/accomplishments/criteria
• Methods and tools that don’t apply to acquisition programs, that need input data that does not exist, that are hard to use, or don’t support program decisions will not get used and will not make a difference
• Co-development with end-users and pilot application to acquisition programs ensures the Systems Engineering Research yields practical and relevant results that can be transitioned into use
Systems Engineering Research Co-Development with and Transition to End-Users
• Desired End State – Utilizing Feedback from the pilot program, the goal is to transition the
processes and methodologies to programs for their usage
– Develop a capability and tool for the RDECOM Integrated Systems Engineering Framework (ISEF), as part of the risk reduction practice
• Leverage programmatic data in the framework
• Provide the tools from which to extract the data
• Leverage knowledge patterns from program to program
• Provide a dashboard for easy insight into program health and risk.
6
The US Army Research and Development Engineering Command (RDECOM)
Integrated Systems Engineering Framework (ISEF)
Real World Examples of SE Research Transition
7
Current Operating Framework
Silos of Information
No Meta Data transfer
Two Stage Process – Think and then Link
Lacks Continuous & Lifecycle Traceability
Lacks Real Time Collaboration
Translation Loss
Reference: – Engineered Resilient Systems (ERS) S&T priority Description & Roadmap, Dr, Robert Neches, ERS PSC Lead, Advanced Engineering Initiatives, ODASD SE, 31 October 2011
ODASD
Graphical Representation of Current Operating
Environment
7
8
ISEF – Overview Integrated Systems Engineering Framework (ISEF)
WEB enabled Collaborative Environment
Solutions Space
Test Plans
Reviews, IPT’s
Subject Matter
Experts
M&S Plans
Decision Makers
High Quality Visualizations
Stakeholders
Integrated Systems Knowledge
Work Products
OUTPUTS
ISEF- Provides Integrated Common Processes/Tools/Methods Across all the Platforms/Portfolios
Innovation / Analysis Space
SE ‘Vee” Model Technical Baseline
ANALYSIS
Problem Space
Subject Matter
Experts
SE Practitioners
Stakeholders
• Stakeholder Needs • Capability Gaps • Requirements Development
INPUTS
Framework to Improve SE Effectiveness
9
Framework Concept
Logistics & Sustainment Management
Manufacturing & ‘ilities’
Management
Verification & Validation
Requirements Management &
Analysis
Stakeholder Needs
Management
Architecture
Transition
Concepts & Product Designs
Modeling & Simulation
Data & Configuration Management
Risk, Opportunity &
Issues Management
Decision Management &
Analysis Tech Planning
Project & Portfolio
Management
Technical Programmatic
Reviews & Assessments
Cost & Affordability Management
Interface & Integration
Management
Integrated Visualizations Dashboards
Linked Lifecycle Data
& Rationale
Single Collaborative Workspace
Integrated Documents & Artifacts
Multi-Dimensional Tradespace
Knowledge Sharing &
Reuse
SYSTEM LIFECYCLE Needs Disposal
An SE framework is a common environment that provides an integrated traceable systems engineering analysis capability throughout the life cycle of a program. It provides an essential supporting structure that enables an iterative collaborative environment for all stakeholders, practitioners and decision makers to proactively engage in and facilitate decision making.
10
Framework Tools
Logistics & Sustainment Management
Manufacturing & ‘ilities’
Management
Verification & Validation
Requirements Management &
Analysis
Stakeholder Needs
Management
Architecture
Transition
Concepts & Product Designs
Modeling & Simulation
Data & Configuration Management
Risk, Opportunity &
Issues Management
Decision Management &
Analysis Tech Planning
Project & Portfolio
Management
Technical Programmatic
Reviews & Assessments
Cost & Affordability Management
Interface & Integration
Management
Integrated Visualizations Dashboards
Linked Lifecycle Data
& Rationale
Single Collaborative Workspace
Integrated Documents & Artifacts
Multi-Dimensional Tradespace
Knowledge Sharing &
Reuse
SYSTEM LIFECYCLE Needs Disposal
Decision Mgmt/Analysis
PM 1-N Needs
Soldier Feedback
Forum
DOORS ® Database *
DOORS ® Requirements
Tool *
Capability AnalysisTool
NoMagic MagicDraw ®
*
Arch WG Arch Tools
ISEF Compliance
Eval Tool
Sustainment Engg Risk
Assess. (SERA)
Manufacturing Readiness Level MRL
Document Auto-Gen Phase 1
Customized Checklists
Opportunity Recon
Technology Readiness Level TRL
Risk Recon
Issue Recon
Integration Readiness Level IRL
Manufacturing Readiness Level MRL
FMEA FMECA
Technical Risk
Assess. (TRA)
Microsoft® Project Server *
Portfolio Mgmt and
Roadmapping
TARDEC Value Streams
Funded In-Use
Un-Funded
Funded In Progress
* COTS
USMC FACT PEO GCS
WSTAT Technology
Database
11
ISEF Value Proposition
• Improve quality of SE execution – Decision Confidence – Accelerated Delivery – Requirements Compliance – Architect for Adaptability, Commonality, Modularity – Reduced Risk
• Increased level of knowledge integration – Insights from new connections, visualizations and rollups – Reduce perceived complexity – Focused knowledge, channeled to the appropriate stakeholders – Ability to anticipate ripple effect changes through the lifecycle
• Increased efficiency and speed to market – Enable seamless, lean business processes – Increased level of enterprise collaboration
• Stretch limited resources – Capture & leverage SME knowledge as patterns – Broaden reach of each individual through recursive methods – Reduce enterprise software expenditures
• Government owned IP – Under government control; can tailor by government needs forever – Continuous access to cutting edge COTS & GOTS tools – Framework for government, industry and academic collaboration – Leverage multiple sources of methods/tool innovation. Ex: SBIR, SERC, small business
Accelerated and aligned solutions to meet warfighter needs
Challenges Addressed
Community Culture
Lack of Enablers
System Complexity
Lack of Common Standards & Arch