Transcript Probability of Program Success Component Standardization : Status Brief Ms. Jane Rathbun Special Assistant , Program Management Improvement OSD(AT&L)(A&T)(PSA) Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Probability of Program Success
Component Standardization :
Status Brief
Ms. Jane Rathbun
Special Assistant , Program Management Improvement
OSD(AT&L)(A&T)(PSA)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
1
OSD Study of PM Training and Experience
• Background & Intent
• Status
• Next Steps
2
Background & Intent
• NDIA/ICPM Sub-Team working on Key Performance Indicators identified a set
of metrics that might serve both government and industry ( March 2009 ICPM)
• As of 2008, all Military Departments are utilizing some variant of PoPS
(Probability of Program Success)—a program health assessment tool
• November 2008 Memo from AT&L, Director PSA to Military Deputies established
as working group to determine a way forward on a common variant
• Can we get to a common variant of PoPS within Defense?
• What other program health/performance indicators are needed for a complete suite of
assessment tools—PoPS+?
• What enterprise level information requirements could be replaced by a PoPS +?
• Could a common variant of PoPS serve as the baseline measure of program
health for both Government and Industry?
3
PoPS Framework Components
As defined by DoN version
• Program Health: The current state of an acquisition program’s
requirements, resources, planning and execution activities, and external
influencers, and how those factors are impacting the program’s ability to
deliver a capability within specific constraints.
• Factors: These are Program Health organizational categories. The four
Factors are: Program Requirements, Program Resources, Program
Planning and Execution, and External Influencers.
• Metrics: Major sub-categories that collectively define the scope of a
particular Factor. There are 18 Metrics in the Naval PoPS 2.0 Program
Health framework. Metrics are the basic building blocks of Naval PoPS.
• Criteria: Parameters (qualitative and quantitative) used to evaluate a
particular Metric. Each Criteria is associated with a unique identification
number to enable traceability between Naval PoPS documents and tools.
4
4
Framework Example
Factor
Metric
Criteria
5
5
PoPs v1.0 Leveraged Air Force PoPS
DON Interim PoPS
Program
Planning/Execution
Program
Fit in Vision
AF/ DON Interim
Program
Requirements
Program
Resources
Parameter Status
Budget
Cost/Schedule
Performance
Testing Status
DoD Vision
Warfighter
Joint Staff
Scope Evolution
Manning
Contractor
Performance
Technical Maturity
Naval Vision
Congress
Naval
Contractor Health
Fixed Price
Performance
Sustainability Risk
Assessment
OSD
Industry
Program Risk
Assessment
Software
Program Advocacy
International
Naval PoPS v1.0
4 Factors
17 Metrics
More Objective
Naval PoPS
Program
Planning/Execution
External
Influencers
Criteria
Program
Requirements
Program
Resources
Parameter Status
Budget
Acquisition
Management
Sustainment
Fit in Vision
Scope Evolution
Manning
Industry/Company
Assessment
Software
Program Advocacy
Relocated
Cost Estimating
Contract
Execution
Interdependencies
Removed
Test and
Evaluation
Government Program
Office Performance
CONOPS
6
PoPS
5 Factors
22 Metrics
Subjective Criteria
Added
Technical Maturity
6
WSARA and 5000.02 driving to version 2.0
6
Status-Phase One –A common Framework
• Components and AT&L have conducted two meetings
• Evaluate the feasibility of having a common set of PoPS factors and metrics
• Identify the process and policy differences in PoPS execution and interpretation of data
across the components to determine if a common position can be agreed upon
• Army has agreed to update their PoPS to the common structure once
difference between AF and Navy versions can be accomodated
• There is agreement that all three Departments can use the factors in the Naval
PoPS version
Program
Requirements
Program
Resources
Program
Planning/Execution
External
Influencers
• Under discussion for the February meeting—metrics level, most of the issues
appear to be in the Program Planning and Execution Factor.
7
Issue Areas
• Should PoPs give status of health or predict future health? Components are using it for
slightly different purposes—this effects the way criteria is stated—seems to be an
interest in moving to a point in time status
• PoPs in support of phases —Factors and Metrics stay the same, but criteria and
weighting change depending on where the program is in the life cycle—Each
component has a different process—need to select a common set of phases and
weighting for enterprise reporting
• DoN-criteria changes and weighting for its six gates
• Air Force-criteria changes and weighting for planning, pre-milestone B, post milestone B,
post milestone C and sustainment
• Army –single criteria and weighting for Milestone B and beyond
•
• Risk—Naval PoPs embedded risk in all their metrics—the likelihood of an issue
occurring, the Air Force and Army Models have risk as a separate metric.
8
Next Steps
•For March
• Complete review of metrics and negotiate any changes between the two models—
produce a common version for leadership review and agreement
• Determine any criteria wording differences—take action: accept, caveat or change
• Identify any additional information needs that are currently not met through PoPS,
propose a mechanism—to get to PoPS+ (example: DAES risk cube)
• Propose a common set of reporting phases for enterprise use (Components may have
more)
•For May
• Determine what enterprise reporting requirements could be replaced with a common
PoPS assessment tool
9