1 / 10

USC ICM Workshop

USC ICM Workshop. October 29-30, 2008 USC Los Angeles, CA. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions. Everything points to need for improvements in human capital DAU approach that requires 4 weeks off-site has limitations People do not tend to read policy and guidance

kelly-jarvis
Download Presentation

USC ICM Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. USC ICM Workshop October 29-30, 2008 USC Los Angeles, CA

  2. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Everything points to need for improvements in human capital • DAU approach that requires 4 weeks off-site has limitations • People do not tend to read policy and guidance • How do we best “work with programs”? • Program management does not understand that plans (such as SEP) are not just checkboxes; these plans describe how the programs should be run • What can we do to support the program between increment reviews? • Note: FCS had credential checks where people shared plans to complete builds • Goal: • Bring policy and guidance to life (bring it “off the page”) • Conduct a PSR that has a green risk cube: (cost, schedule, technical) • Ensure that the behavior of the Program Acquisition organization after MS B meets the agreements/documents/plans/etc that were put in place between MS A and MS B • How to best support the programs prior to MS A (ICM spans work prior to MS A) • ICM has milestones that align with MS A and MS B

  3. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Milestone/Event ordering: • AoA • MS A • Define Acquisition Strategy • Pre-CP period • Workshop 1 • Workshop 2 • Etc • CP period • Workshop A • Workshop B • Etc • PSR (6-9 months prior to MS B); may or may not occur prior to PDR • PDR • MS B • DAU 4-6 week “bootcamp” • MS A/B Software Engineering guidance inputs: • Navy POPS • Navy SW Guide • AF SW Guide • SE/SW integration framework • ICM • Cost estimation • Survey results and recommendations • Start-Up Teams focus areas: • Coordination of the offices that “touch” the program • Prepare to reduce risk by providing just-in-time support between MS A and MS B

  4. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Workshops (may be called Start-Up Teams or “TouchPoints”) between MS A and PSR; Note that ICM spans work prior to MS A) • N working sessions driven by program needs • Just-in-time training/tutorials • Non-evaluative • Advisory • Help people pass the “final exam”; please attend the “office hours” • Could include technology demos • External stakeholders do not just show up, assign actions, and leave; they help do work • Each Workshop TouchPoint has a focus (“how is it that we will be able to produce the evidence?”): • Acquisition strategy • Incentive structures • RFP wording • CP RFP wording • Post-MS B RFP wording • Support for baseline cost/schedule/etc estimates • WBS • Infrastructure • User engagement • Make sure all these assets are synchronized and stabilized • Mentoring • Send drafts to larger audiences

  5. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Workshops: Possible team members • SSE – Engineering • DCMA – Contracts • DDR&E – Science and technology • PA&E – Metrics • DAU • DoD • PMO • Component leads • FFRDC’s • etc • Workshops: Awareness of overall environment • Looking at what is happening around you, including looking at emerging opportunities and risks • Validation of what was supposed to get done was done • Work to get done is getting done now • Planning for what needs to get done

  6. BACKUP CHARTS

  7. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Contractors have the concern of the customers “leveling the playing field” by seeing two competing demos and selecting a differentiating feature from one contractor and making it “required” from both • Removes the potential competitive advantage • Contractors “hold back” key features • AT&L is trying to discourage the combining of competing systems, such as LCS example of combining tower and shallow-water capabilities • Combining features during CP is not buying down risk – it is adding features • Can we postpone the new features to O&M? • Can we use PRDA funding to keep the contractor teams funding during down-select intervals? • Suggestion: Identify an actual pre-B program and support it using Start-Up Teams to adopt new approaches, such as ICM, TouchPoints, etc. • Or should we just continue to build a community? • “At DARPA, you are only as good as your next demo” • How frequent should your demos occur, what are the goals for the demos (risk reduction etc), who is the audience, etc.? • It will be hard to pin-down time frequency without defining goals/context/etc • Program needs to define goals for prototypes: risk reduction, key nominal capabilities, etc

  8. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • Need acquisition strategy for these new ideas • Why do contractors re-validate requirements after they win a contract? • Anticipate requirements changes • Acquisition reform decimated the acquisition workforce • Investing in human capital • Large portions of the acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire soon • There is no current career track for SW personnel in the acquisition workforce • CP Survey report needs to highlight benefits and pitfalls, so report can be action oriented • Basic CP value propositions: • There is significant risk exposure in making the wrong decision • The prototype has significant ROI for reducing the risk • Need “CRACK” stakeholder participants: • Committed, representative, authorized, collaborative, knowledgeable • Satisficing principle: All success-critical stakeholders • Key goal for CP: reduce Nunn-McCurdy recertifications • Lost of key staff during recertification period • Recertifications are expensive because of funding needed to conduct re-cert plus funding needed for contractor teams • Close-out costs can be greater than continuing to fund the contractor team • If certain programs are on the pathway to being “doomed” due to risks, CP may help us know that sooner

  9. ICM Workshop – Key Discussions • We need an update framework and updated guidance • Since systems take so long to develop and technology continues to change, we actually acquire “legacy systems” • Also: the systems we ultimately deliver that are sufficiently outdated that they are considered “legacy systems” at the time of delivery

  10. Some Feedback on Strategic Issues • Need to weave 2x2 payoff-ease charts, task lists, and other recommendations into SE/SW roadmap • Select a few high-payoff ideas, such as Start-Up Teams • Need best-of-class example of favorable adoption of Competitive Prototyping • Challenging inhibitors: Indivisible IOC, need near/mid/etc-term payoff horizons • Define success criteria for roadmap and set expectations accordingly

More Related