incremental commitment model icm guidebook status plans key issues n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Guidebook Status, Plans, Key Issues PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Guidebook Status, Plans, Key Issues

Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Guidebook Status, Plans, Key Issues

447 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Guidebook Status, Plans, Key Issues

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Guidebook Status, Plans, Key Issues Barry Boehm and Jo Ann Lane, USC-CSSE ICM Guidebook Workshop 3 October 29, 2008 Most charts include explanatory notes

  2. Outline • Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Overview • ICM distinguishing features and implications • Key ICM process views • Proposed ICM Guidebook Organization • Executive Summary: Key Features, Implications, Case Study • Core Body: Phases and Activities; Case Study Illustrations • Appendices: Detailed Practices; Common Special Cases • Guidebook Status and Plans • Key Issues • Policies (5000.2, CP); Standards (IEEE-EIA, ISO) • Conclusions; References; Acronyms; Backup charts ©USC-CSSE

  3. ICM Distinguishing Features ©USC-CSSE • Not a one-size-fits-all model • Risk-driven activity sequences; common special cases • Incremental vs. total resource commitment • System definition: compatible with competitive prototyping • System development: timeboxed increments; concurrent rebaselining; prioritized backlog • Concurrent engineering • Of objectives and solutions; product and process; development and evolution; hardware, software, and human factors • Synchronized and stabilized at major milestones • Evidence, risk, and commitment-based milestones • Feasibility evidence a first-class deliverable

  4. 2008 SOW: DoD ICM Guidebook Research is finding better ways… and concepts are being evaluated and refined through OSD-sponsored workshops… ©USC-CSSE • Develop a draft Guidebook for next-generation DoD IS&SE based on the ICM • In collaboration with DoD and industry participants • Collaborate with selected DoD and industry parties in experimental tailoring of draft Guidebook elements • Would like to explore collaboration opportunities here • Hold a series of Guidebook workshops • Mar 19-20 (USC), July 15-17 (DC area), Oct 29-30 (USC) • Coordinate Guidebook with other IS&SE initiatives • Systems of systems engineering, systemic analysis, acquisition, education, assessment, research and technology

  5. DoD ICM Guidebook Concept ©USC-CSSE • Easily digestible top-level ICM guide • Essentials of model and examples • ICM guides for key new practices and areas • Evidence-based anchor point commitment milestones • Developing Feasibility Evidence Descriptions • Using the ICM for systems of systems • Using the ICM for competitive prototyping • Using the ICM process decision table • Detailed phase and activity guide • Draft being adapted from 200-page predecessor • Potential follow-ons • Electronic Process Guide (some work underway with IBM) • Courseware (lectures, learning modules)

  6. The Incremental Commitment Life Cycle Process: Overview Stage I: Definition Stage II: Development and Operations Anchor Point Milestones Synchronize, stabilize concurrency via FEDs Risk patterns determine life cycle process ©USC-CSSE

  7. ICM HSI Levels of Activity for Complex Systems ©USC-CSSE

  8. Anchor Point Feasibility Evidence Description • Evidence provided by developer and validated by independent experts that: If the system is built to the specified architecture, it will • Satisfy the requirements: capability, interfaces, level of service, and evolution • Support the operational concept • Be buildable within the budgets and schedules in the plan • Generate a viable return on investment • Generate satisfactory outcomes for all of the success-critical stakeholders • All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plans • Serves as basis for stakeholders’ commitment to proceed Can be used to strengthen current schedule- or event-based reviews ©USC-CSSE

  9. ICM integrates strengths of current process modelsBut not their weaknesses ©USC-CSSE • V-Model: Emphasis on early verification and validation • But not ease of sequential, single-increment interpretation • Spiral Model: Risk-driven activity prioritization • But not lack of well-defined in-process milestones • RUP and MBASE: Concurrent engineering stabilized by anchor point milestones • But not software orientation • Lean Development: Emphasis on value-adding activities • But not repeatable manufacturing orientation • Agile Methods: Adaptability to unexpected change • But not software orientation, lack of scalability

  10. Process Model PrinciplesPrinciples trump diagrams • Commitment and accountability - Needed for high assurance systems • Success-critical stakeholder satisficing - Needed for multi-owner systems of systems • Incremental growth of system definition and stakeholder commitment - Needed for emergent requirements, rapid change 4, 5. Concurrent, iterative system definition and development cycles - Needed for rapid change, rapid OODA loops 6. Risk-based activity levels and anchor point commitment milestones Used by 60-80% of CrossTalk Top-5 projects, 2002-2005 ©USC-CSSE

  11. Incremental Commitment in Gambling • Total Commitment: Roulette • Put your chips on a number • E.g., a value of a key performance parameter • Wait and see if you win or lose • Incremental Commitment: Poker, Blackjack • Put some chips in • See your cards, some of others’ cards • Decide whether, how much to commit to proceed ©USC-CSSE

  12. Scalable remotely controlled operations ©USC-CSSE

  13. Total vs. Incremental Commitment – 4:1 RPV • Total Commitment • Agent technology demo and PR: Can do 4:1 for $1B • Winning bidder: $800M; PDR in 120 days; 4:1 capability in 40 months • PDR: many outstanding risks, undefined interfaces • $800M, 40 months: “halfway” through integration and test • 1:1 IOC after $3B, 80 months • Incremental Commitment [number of competing teams] • $25M, 6 mo. to VCR [4]: may beat 1:2 with agent technology, but not 4:1 • $75M, 8 mo. to ACR [3]: agent technology may do 1:1; some risks • $225M, 10 mo. to DCR [2]: validated architecture, high-risk elements • $675M, 18 mo. to IOC [1]: viable 1:1 capability • 1:1 IOC after $1B, 42 months ©USC-CSSE

  14. The Incremental Commitment Life Cycle Process: Overview Stage I: Definition Stage II: Development and Operations Anchor Point Milestones Concurrently engr. Incr.N (ops), N+1 (devel), N+2 (arch) Concurrently engr. OpCon, rqts, arch, plans, prototypes ©USC-CSSE

  15. Different Risk Patterns Yield Different Processes ©USC-CSSE

  16. Common Risk-Driven Special Cases of the ICM C4ISR: Command, Control, Computing, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. CDR: Critical Design Review. DCR: Development Commitment Review. FRP: Full-Rate Production. HMI: Human-Machine Interface. HW: Hard ware. IOC: Initial Operational Capability. LRIP: Low-Rate Initial Production. NDI: Non-Development Item. SW: Software ©USC-CSSE

  17. Outline • Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Overview • ICM distinguishing features and implications • Key ICM process views • Proposed ICM Guidebook Organization • Executive Summary: Key Features, Implications, Case Study • Core Body: Phases and Activities; Case Study Illustrations • Appendices: Detailed Practices; Common Special Cases • Guidebook Status and Plans • Key Issues • Policies (5000.2, CP); Standards (IEEE-EIA, ISO) • Conclusions; References; Acronyms; Backup charts ©USC-CSSE

  18. Executive Summary Content ©USC-CSSE • Motivation and context • Current DoD needs and future challenges • How ICM addresses needs and challenges • Key ICM distinguishing features and principles • Relationships to DoD-relevant policies and standards • 5000 series, competitive prototyping, ISO 15288/12207, others • Structure and content of chapters • Phase guidelines follow Firesmith metamodel • Goals and Objectives; Entry Conditions; Inputs; Steps; Exit Conditions; Work Products; Pitfalls

  19. Core Body Content ©USC-CSSE • Getting Started: The Exploration Phase • Case study: remotely piloted vehicle control • Common special cases • Stage I: Valuation and Foundations Phases • Illustrated by case study • Artifact guidelines: Ops Concept, Requirements, Architecture, Life Cycle Plan, Feasibility Evidence • Stage II: Incremental Development and Operations • Concurrent use of Increment N, development of Increment N+1, rebaselining of Increment N+2 • Illustrated by case study • Artifact guidelines: Plans for test phases, quality management, implementation, life cycle support

  20. Exploration Exploration Phase Content ©USC-CSSE

  21. Top-Level VCR/CD Package ©USC-CSSE Operations/ Life Cycle Concept    - Top-level system boundary and environment elements    - Benefits chain or equivalent       - Links initiatives to desired benefits and identifies associated SCSs       - Including production and life cycle support SCSs    - Representative operational and support scenariosPrototypes (focused on top development and operational risks)Objectives, Constraints, and Priorities    - Initial Capabilities DocumentLeading Solution Alternatives    - Top-level physical, logical, capability and behavioral viewsLife Cycle Plan Key Elements    - Top-level phases, capability increments, roles, responsibilities, required resourcesFeasibility Evidence Description    - Evidence of ability to meet objectives within budget and schedule constraints    - Evidence of ability to provide desired benefits to stakeholders       - Mission effectiveness evidence

  22. ICM Guidebook Content: Artifacts ©USC-CSSE • Stage I Artifacts • Operational Concept Definition • Requirements Definition • Architecture Definition • Life Cycle Plans • Systems Engineering, Quality Management, … • Feasibility Evidence Description • Stage II Artifacts • Detailed Increment Development Plans • Test and Assurance Plans • Implementation Plans • Life Cycle Support Plans

  23. ICM Guidebook Content: Appendices ©USC-CSSE Using the ICM for Competitive Prototyping Incremental Commitment Milestones and Feasibility Evidence Preparation Stakeholder Satisficing Techniques and Tools Risk Assessment and Management ICM-Oriented Estimation and Management Metrics Using the ICM for systems of systems Using the ICM process decision table Applying Selected ICM Practices to Ongoing Projects Other special needs as appropriate

  24. ICM Transition Paths • Existing programs may benefit from some ICM principles and practices, but not others • Problem programs may find some ICM practices helpful in recovering viability • Primary opportunities for incremental adoption of ICM principles and practices • Supplementing traditional requirements and design reviews with development and review of feasibility evidence • Stabilized incremental development and concurrent architecture rebaselining • Using schedule as independent variable and prioritizing features to be delivered • Continuous verification and validation • Using the process decision table ©USC-CSSE

  25. Outline • Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) Overview • ICM distinguishing features and implications • Key ICM process views • Proposed ICM Guidebook Organization • Executive Summary: Key Features, Implications, Case Study • Core Body: Phases and Activities; Case Study Illustrations • Appendices: Detailed Practices; Common Special Cases • Guidebook Status and Plans • Key Issues • Policies (5000.2, CP); Standards (IEEE-EIA, ISO) • Conclusions; References; Acronyms; Backup charts ©USC-CSSE

  26. Guidebook Status and Plans ©USC-CSSE • Concepts worked out for most elements • A few outstanding issues; see below • Critical mass of Electronic Process Guide in use • On 16 real-client MS-student team projects • Critical mass of content available as PowerPoint charts with notes • See Workshop Materials on this Workshop’s web site • • Plan to convert Executive Summary into text by end of 2008 • Looking for pilot users and authoring collaborators

  27. Some Outstanding ICM-for-DoD Issues ©USC-CSSE Final versions of 5000 series and related policies Degree of compatibility with ISO standards Sequencing of DoD milestones and source selection Incremental Development vs. Operations and Maintenance Support of competitive prototyping Impacts on funding, EVMS, estimation, measurement

  28. Conclusions ©USC-CSSE • ICM proving robust, versatile on 16 test projects • Architected Agile; Hybrid Agile/Plan-Driven; NDI-Intensive • ICM approaches being applied on some major programs • Future Combat Systems, Missile Defense Agency • Several issues remain to resolve • Critical mass of guidance available for review and experimentation • Looking for pilot users and authoring collaborators

  29. References - I Beck, K., Extreme Programming Explained, Addison Wesley, 1999. Boehm, B., “Some Future Trends and Implications for Systems and Software Engineering Processes”, Systems Engineering 9(1), pp. 1-19, 2006. Boehm, B., Brown, W., Basili, V., and Turner, R., “Spiral Acquisition of Software-Intensive Systems of Systems, CrossTalk, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 4-9, 2004. Boehm, B. and Lane J., "21st Century Processes for Acquiring 21st Century Software-Intensive Systems of Systems." CrossTalk: Vol. 19, No. 5, pp.4-9, 2006. Boehm, B., and Lane, J., “Using the ICM to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems Engineering, and Software Engineering,”CrossTalk, October 2007, pp. 4-9. Boehm, B., and Lane, J., “A Process Decision Table for Integrated Systems and Software Engineering,” Proceedings, CSER 2008, April 2008. Boehm, B., “Future Challenges and Rewards for Software Engineers,”DoD Software Tech News, October 2007, pp. 6-12. Boehm, B. et al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, 2000. Boehm, B., Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, 2000. Carlock, P. and Fenton, R., "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems for Information-Intensive Organizations," Systems Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 242-26, 2001. Carlock, P., and J. Lane, “System of Systems Enterprise Systems Engineering, the Enterprise Architecture Management Framework, and System of Systems Cost Estimation”, 21st International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost Modeling, 2006. Checkland, P., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, 1980 (2nd ed., 1999). Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Acquisition Guidebook, version 1.6,, 2006. Department of Defense (DoD), Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, May 2003. Department of Defense (DoD), Systems Engineering Plan Preparation Guide, USD(AT&L), 2004. Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a System Galorath, D., and Evans, M., Software Sizing, Estimation, and Risk Management, Auerbach, 2006. Hall, E.T., Beyond Culture, Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1976. ©USC-CSSE

  30. References -II Highsmith, J., Adaptive Software Development, Dorset House, 2000. International Standards Organization, Information Technology Software Life Cycle Processes, ISO/IEC 12207, 1995 ISO, Systems Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes, ISO/IEC 15288, 2002. Jensen, R. “An Improved Macrolevel Software Development Resource Estimation Model,” Proceedings, ISPA 5, April 1983, pp. 88-92. Krygiel, A., Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33 Lane, J. and Boehm, B., "System of Systems Cost Estimation: Analysis of Lead System Integrator Engineering Activities", Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 23-32, 2007. Lane, J. and Valerdi, R., “Synthesizing SoS Concepts for Use in Cost Estimation”, Proceedings of IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference, 2005. Lientz, B., and Swanson, E.B., Software Maintenance Management, Addison Wesley, 1980. Madachy, R., Boehm, B., Lane, J., "Assessing Hybrid Incremental Processes for SISOS Development", USC CSSE Technical Report USC-CSSE-2006-623, 2006. Maier, M., “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp 267-284). Maier, M., “System and Software Architecture Reconciliation,”Systems Engineering 9 (2), 2006, pp. 146-159. Northrop, L., et al., Ultra-Large-Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future, Software Engineering Institute, 2006. Pew, R. W., and Mavor, A. S., Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look, National Academy Press, 2007. Putnam, L., “A General Empirical Solution to the Macro Software Sizing and Estimating Problem,”IEEE Trans SW Engr., July 1978, pp. 345-361. Rechtin, E. Systems Architecting, Prentice Hall, 1991. Schroeder, T., “Integrating Systems and Software Engineering: Observations in Practice,”OSD/USC Integrating Systems and Software Engineering Workshop,, October 2007. ©USC-CSSE

  31. List of Acronyms B/L Baselined C4ISR Command, Control, Computing, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance CD Concept Development CDR Critical Design Review COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf DCR Development Commitment Review DI Development Increment DoD Department of Defense ECR Exploration Commitment Review EVMS Earned Value Management System FCR Foundations Commitment Review FDN Foundations, as in FDN Package FED Feasibility Evidence Description FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis FRP Full-Rate Production GAO Government Accountability Office GUI Graphical User Interface ©USC-CSSE

  32. List of Acronyms (continued) HMI Human-Machine Interface HSI Human-System Interface HW Hardware ICM Incremental Commitment Model IOC Initial Operational Capability IRR Inception Readiness Review IS&SE Integrating Systems and Software Engineering LCA Life Cycle Architecture LCO Life Cycle Objectives LRIP Low-Rate Initial Production MBASE Model-Based Architecting and Software Engineering NDI Non-Developmental Item NRC National Research Council OC Operational Capability OCR Operations Commitment Review OO&D Observe, Orient and Decide OODA Observe, Orient, Decide, Act O&M Operations and Maintenance ©USC-CSSE

  33. List of Acronyms (continued) PDR Preliminary Design Review PM Program Manager PR Public Relations PRR Product Release Review RUP Rational Unified Process SoS System of Systems SoSE System of Systems Engineering SSE Systems and Software Engineering SW Software SwE Software Engineering SysE Systems Engineering Sys Engr Systems Engineer S&SE Systems and Software Engineering USD (AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics VCR Validation Commitment Review V&V Verification and Validation WBS Work Breakdown Structure WMI Warfighter-Machine Interface ©USC-CSSE

  34. Backup Charts ©USC-CSSE

  35. ICM Approach to Systems of Systems ©USC-CSSE • SoSs provide examples of how systems and software engineering can be better integrated when evolving existing systems to meet new needs • Net-centricity and collaboration-intensiveness of SoSs have created more emphasis on integrating hardware, software, and human factors engineering • Focus is on • Flexibility and adaptability • Use of creative approaches, experimentation, and tradeoffs • Consideration of non-optimal approaches that are satisfactory to key stakeholders • Key focus for SoS engineering is to guide the evolution of constituent systems within SoS to • Perform cross-cutting capabilities • While supporting existing single-system stakeholders • SoS process adaptations have much in common with the ICM • Supports evolution of constituent systems using the appropriate special case for each system • Guides the evolution of the SoS through long range increments that fit with the incremental evolution of the constituent systems • ICM fits well with the OSD SoS SE Guidebook description of SoSE core elements

  36. Example: SoSE Coordination Challenge Rebaseline/ Adjustment FCR1 FCR1 DCR1 OCR1 OCR2 Exploration Valuation Architecting Develop Operation SoS-Level    Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner n LCO-type Proposal & Feasibility Info ● ● ● Source Selection Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner 1 OCRx2 OCRx1 OCRx5 OCRx3 OCRx4 System x       Develop Operation Operation Operation Operation ● ● ● OCRC1 OCRC2 FCRC DCRC System C       Exploration Valuation Architecting Develop Operation OCRB2 FCRB DCRB OCRB1 System B       Exploration Valuation Architecting Develop Operation OCRA1 FCRA DCRA System A       Exploration Valuation Architecting Develop Operation ©USC-CSSE

  37. Young Memo: Prototyping and Competition ©USC-CSSE • Discover issues before costly SDD phase • Producing detailed designs in SDD • Not solving myriad technical issues • Services and Agencies to produce competitive prototypes through Milestone B • Reduce technical risk, validate designs and cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, refine requirements • Will reduce time to fielding • And enhance govt.-industry teambuilding, SysE skills, attractiveness to next generation of technologists • Applies to all programs requiring USD(AT&L) approval • Should be extended to appropriate programs below ACAT I

  38. Implementing the Young Memo ©USC-CSSE • Need way of assuring continuity of funding, but with off-ramps • Prototyping and Competition Plan • Incremental off-ramp milestones • Need criteria for assessing feasibility to proceed • Avoid overfocus on prototyping • Feasible, scalable technology and management infrastructure • Adequate budget, schedule, critical skills • Key stakeholders committed to proceed • Shortfalls in evidence are risks, need risk management plans • ICM provides desired processes and criteria • Anchor Point milestones and Feasibility Evidence deliverable • Incremental phase entry and exit criteria

  39. Milestone B Focus on Technology Maturity Misses Many OSD/AT&L Systemic Root Causes 1 Technical process (35 instances) 6 Lack of appropriate staff (23) - V&V, integration, modeling&sim. 2 Management process (31) 7 Ineffective organization (22) 3 Acquisition practices (26) 8 Ineffective communication (21) 4 Requirements process (25) 9 Program realism (21) 5 Competing priorities (23) 10 Contract structure (20) • Some of these are root causes of technology immaturity • Can address thesevia evidence-based Milestone B exit criteria • Technology Development Strategy • Capability Development Document • Evidence of affordability, KPP satisfaction, program achievability ©USC-CSSE

  40. Acquiring Organization’s ICM-Based CP Plan Addresses issues discussed above Risk-driven prototyping rounds, concurrent definition and development, continuity of support, stakeholder involvement, off-ramps Organized around key management questions Objectives (why?): concept feasibility, best system solution Milestones and Schedules (what? when?): Number and timing of competitive rounds; entry and exit criteria, including off-ramps Responsibilities (who? where?): Success-critical stakeholder roles and responsibilities for activities and artifacts Approach (how?): Management approach or evaluation guidelines, technical approach or evaluation methods, facilities, tools, and concurrent engineering Resources (how much?): Necessary resources for acquirers, competitors, evaluators, other stakeholders across full range of prototyping and evaluation rounds Assumptions (whereas?): Conditions for exercise of off-ramps, rebaselining of priorities and criteria Provides a stable framework for pursuing CP ©USC-CSSE

  41. Conclusions: IS&SE with ICM ©USC-CSSE • Current DoD SysE guidance seriously inhibits SwE best practices • Largely sequential definition, design, development, integration, and test • Slows agility, ability to turn inside adversaries’ OODA loop • Functional “part-of” vs. layered “served by” product hierarchy • Static vs. dynamic interfaces: messages vs. protocols • One-size-fits-all process guidance inhibits balancing agility and assurance • Incremental Commitment Model (ICM) enables better IS&SE • Integrates hardware, software, human factors aspects of SysE • Concurrent exploration of needs, opportunities, solutions • Successfully addresses issues above in commercial practice • Only partially proven in DoD practice (examples: CrossTalk Top-5 projects) • Key practices applied to help major programs (example: Future Combat Systems) • Being adopted by major programs (example: Missile Defense Agency) • Transition paths available for partial adoption

  42. ICM Assumptions and Critical Success Factors ©USC-CSSE • The project can establish milestones at which it can synchronize and stabilize its elements • May exclude some classes of systems of systems • Ad-hoc, collaborative, some acknowledged • But ICM principles can be applied to tailor variants • The project can invest enough up front to generate and evaluate feasibility evidence and address risks • The project can acknowledge and manage its risks • Risk-taking essential for many classes of projects • Unprecedentedness, emergence, rapid change, immature technology • DARPA: 100% success rate is not doing your job • Commercial: 40% failure rate acceptable for new ventures

  43. ICM Assumptions and Critical Success Factors - II ©USC-CSSE • The program office has enough expertise to evaluate feasibility evidence and assess risks • If not in-house, need to contract for it • Feasibility evidence is a first-class deliverable • Needs plans, EVMS monitoring of progress vs. plans • Appropriate contracting mechanisms and incentive structures are available for executing ICM approach • Concurrent stabilized development, change rebaselining, V&V • Collaborative systems of systems • Competitive prototyping • Representative examples are needed to clarify concepts • Ideally, success stories with excursions to show pitfalls

  44. Implications for funding, contracting, career paths • Incremental vs. total funding • Often with evidence-based competitive downselect • No one-size-fits all contracting • Separate instruments for build-to-spec, agile rebaselining, V&V teams • With funding and award fees for collaboration, risk management • Compatible regulations, specifications, and standards • Compatible acquisition corps education and training • Generally, schedule/cost/quality as independent variable • Prioritized feature set as dependent variable • Multiple career paths • For people good at build-to-spec, agile rebaselining, V&V • For people good at all three • Futureprogram managers and chief engineers ©USC-CSSE