Transcript Ohio Chapter NTSA Engineering Forum Revitalizing Systems Engineering 21 July 2004 Mark Adducchio Director of Engineering (acting) USAF Training Systems Product Group [email protected] (937) 255-7388 x3257

Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
21 July 2004
Mark Adducchio
Director of Engineering (acting)
USAF Training Systems
Product Group
[email protected]
(937) 255-7388 x3257
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Renewed interest in Systems Engineering from AF
leadership
• Some policy & guidance rolling in from both OSD &
SecAF - pending within ASC and the TSPG
• TSPG & Industry should go forward single-mindedly
with what works, what’s useful, and what’s
reasonable
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Objectives
• Gain a clear idea on ways to apply
systems engineering initiatives to training
systems developments
• How best to formulate future training
systems acquisitions to reflect these
initiatives
• How to stimulate good systems
engineering processes that directly relate
to delivering the product
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• TSA
• Contractor SE capabilities/practices evaluated
during source selection
• Task orders assume SE in place
• No specific SE requirements
• SE assessment of task order proposals integrated into
IMP/IMS evaluation
• For individual orders, contractor determines scope of
SE effort
• Typically risk management, reviews, IMP/IMS, Req’t
tracking
• SE Incentives schedule milestones
• Nothing precludes additional SE requirements from
task orders
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Discrete Programs (non-TSA)
• Treat SE as needed and/or per prevailing
policy/climate
• SE requirements thoroughly defined on
some programs  C-17 MTS
• Some dictated by parent program F/A-22
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• How is SE managed in the TSPG?
• Program specific
• Reliant on contractor emphasis & practices
• Individual experience
• Sometimes personality driven
• Usually tied to the IMP/IMS
• Few institutional guidelines
• IRM, DAU guides and courses
• OSS&E
• Gov’t specific indicators based in Tech
Health charts
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Technical Health Charts
• Subjective assessment on
complexity and progress
• Risk items
• Issues
• TD count
Technical Review
Ohio Chapter
Program:
Contractor:
Engineer:
As of Date:
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
C
h
a
r
t
3 Mar 2004
Engineer’s Assessment
G
PMR
G
G
G
Last Qtr Current Qtr Next Qtr Performance
DRs
Gov’t DRs Total
Critical Milestones
Last: WST RFT
Written:
273
None
Criteria Status: Complete
Closed:
158
None
Next: WST ATP Start
Open:
88
Contract Type: FFP, CPFF
Ready:
27
None
None
Baseline: Sys Spec
Technical Issues
Government Status
Requirements
Loosely
Defined
Creeping
Firm
Documented
Undisputed
User
Communication
No Dialog
Actively
Involved
Government
Technical Staff
Not
Adequate
TEST
CM/DMENG
OSS&E Level
Level 6
Contract Status
Development
Assessment
Significant
Impact on
Program
Specification
Compliance
KPPs Will
Not Be Met
Processes
Discipline
SYS
ENG SW CM
• Facilities Issue- -- Schedule delays due to weather and facility
Oversight/Insight
Meet Or
Exceed
Mature
Unproven
Technical
Data Quality
Resources
SW HW SYS CW
Exceeds
Program
Plan
Undisciplined
Technical Access
• Virtual Flag 04-03
Adequate
Level 1
• Control Loading/Motion Technology
contract management
Single
Element
System of
Systems
Training
Critical
Date: 19Dec03
Est. Date: March 2004
System
Complexity
Steadfast
Low
High
SUBS& TECH
DATA STAFF
None
Heavy
Oversight
Inadequate
Complete
Light
Insight
Optimum
Schedule Impact
Very Late
To Need
Financial Impact
Not Enough
Money
Enough
Money
Design
Distribution
Fragmented
Multi-Site
Single
Site
Vendor/Sub
Management
Little
Control
Lots of
Time
Tight
Control
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Current Issues
• Obscure requirements & requirements drill-down
• Milestone preparation – design review criteria &
expectations
• Poorly defined HSI completion criteria – premature
testing SE staying power
• Risk identification between contractor & Gov’t
diverge
• CM failures
• Integration of engineering activities w/
management controls & indicators
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Renewed emphasis on SE processes
• Risk Management
• Engineering/developmental milestones
• Incentives
• More Gov’t guidance
• Likely no new standards (i.e. MIL-STD499B)
• CMMI?
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Establish more robust SE policy &
guidance within TSPG
• Consistent application of SE practices
within TSPG
• ASC policies & guidance
• Operating instructions
• Training
• TSA III emphasis
• TSA II Task orders
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• How Do We Apply To Our Programs
• Contractor defined milestones?
• SEP
• Leading Indicators/Metrics
• Incentives (not disincentives)
• Technical Baseline
• Content
• Control
• Robust Product Design
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• Transitioning to the SE Plan
• Provides vehicle for program
standardization
• Map expected technical progress
• Report technical indicators
• IMP/IMS criteria; integration milestones; test
results
• Integrate these w/ incentives
• How do we normalize this with contractor
milestones & indicators?
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
• 3 Discussion Groups
• Proposal guidance for effective SE
• Policy Implementation
• Technical management & leading indicators
• How can industry help this “revitalization”?
• Speak up
• Put up
• Ante up
Ohio Chapter
NTSA Engineering Forum
Revitalizing Systems Engineering
QUESTIONS?