changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to ......changing the value equation in...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Changing the value equation in engineering and acquisition to align systems of systems with dynamic mission needs: The Value Stairs
Philip Boxer, Suzanne Garcia, William Anderson, Pat Kirwan
October 21st 2008
2
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Agenda
The demand for agilityManaging alignmentCreating value for the defense enterpriseChanging the value equation
3
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Modernization AND Stability/Counterinsurgency
I’ve spent much of the last year talking about irregular or asymmetric warfaretalking about irregular or asymmetric warfare, and making the argument in favor of institutionalizing counterinsurgency skills, and our ability to institutionalizing counterinsurgency skills, and our ability to conduct stability and support conduct stability and support operationsoperations. The need for the state of the art systems – particularly longer range capabilities – will never go away, as we strive to offset the countermeasures being developed by other nations. But at a certain point, given the types of situations we are likely to face, it begs the question whether specialized, often relatively low-tech equipment for stability and counterinsurgency missions is also needed.
•• How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities –– and the ability to get them fielded quicklyand the ability to get them fielded quickly?•• Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process to develop counter-IED technologies, to build
MRAPs, and to quickly expand our ISR capability? In short, why did we have to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities we need to protect our troops and pursue the wars we are in?
Our conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solutiOur conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solution in yearson in years. Stability and Stability and counterinsurgency missions counterinsurgency missions –– the wars we are in the wars we are in –– require 75 percent solutions in monthsrequire 75 percent solutions in months.
•• The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds theThe challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to se two different paradigms can be made to coexist.coexist.
• The issue then becomes how we build this kind of innovative thinking and flexibility into our rigid procurement processes here at home. The key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drThe key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drives the ives the procurement, rather than the other way aroundprocurement, rather than the other way around.
I believe we must do this. The two models can I believe we must do this. The two models can –– and do and do –– coexist. coexist.
Extracted from speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2008http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1279
4
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
There are three diverging tempos
Defence Enterprise
Effect
DemandAcquisition
TempoAlignment
Tempo
Adapted from: Appropriate Collaboration and Appropriate Competition in C4ISTAR Transformation, Dr Nicholas Whittall RUSI 2007
Campaign Tempo
Gap = NeedAcquisition
Composite Capability
Capability
Capability
Capability
Orchestration
TrainingEquipment
PeopleInformation
DoctrineOrganisationInfrastructure
Logistics
Suppliers
Capability
Requirement
‘Arms-length’ or ‘smart’ Defense Companies await Requirements expressed in
Programmes.
Competitive advantage to be gained in aligning the Need to the
Demand.
Competitive advantage is gained by aligning the Composite
Capabilities to the Demand.
Divergence of tempos increases costs of
alignment
Divergence of tempos increases costs of costs of
alignmentalignment
5
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The divergence of tempos challenges the supplier to support Type III Agility
Supplier Alignment
Competitive
Collaborative
Type 1+ AgilityDirected
Composition
Workarounds, UORs, etc
Type 2 AgilityCentre-driven Collaboration
Design for Integration
Type 3 AgilityEdge-driven
Collaboration
Design for Flexibility
(Supporting SoS extensibility)
Type 1 AgilityDirected
Composition
Traditional or ‘Smart’ Engineering
The C4ISTAR Sector net-
enabled journey
Operational AlignmentAnticipated Unanticipated
Integrate what we have
Contingency Planning
Derived from ‘The Double Challenge’, in Boxer, P.J. et al. (2008) SoS Navigator 2.0: A Context-Based Approach to System-of-Systems Challenges (CMU/SEI-2008-TN-001). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2008. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/08.reports/08tn001.html
6
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Agenda
The demand for agilityManaging alignmentCreating value for the defense enterpriseChanging the value equation
7
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The approach to alignment is ‘stratified’
Defence Enterprise
Effect
DemandAcquisition
TempoAlignment
Tempo Campaign Tempo
Gap = NeedAcquisition
Composite Capability
Capability
Capability
Capability
Orchestration
TrainingEquipment
PeopleInformation
DoctrineOrganisationInfrastructure
Logistics
Suppliers
Capability
Requirement
The WHYThe WHY: Decisive Points in
Campaign Strategy
The WHO (in relation to) The WHO (in relation to) WHOMWHOM: Force Structure and Mission Command
The WHATThe WHAT: Equipment
The HOWThe HOW: Fielded
Equipment and Force Elements
This alignment is This alignment is ‘‘StratifiedStratified’’
Capability Alignment (to Alignment Tempo)
underlying technologies
ultimate effects
8
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The Zachman framework
assumes a static definition of the
Enterprise
The divergence of these tempos creates new challenges for the Defense Enterprise
Where does the role of the supplier fit in?
Supplier Alignment
Competitive
Collaborative
Type 1+ AgilityDirected
Composition
Workarounds, UORs, etc
Type 2 AgilityCentre-driven Collaboration
Design for Integration
Type 3 AgilityEdge-driven
Collaboration
Design for Flexibility
(Supporting SoSextensibility)
Type 1 AgilityDirected
Composition
Traditional or ‘Smart’ Engineering
Operational AlignmentAnticipated Unanticipated
Operational Alignment
(to Campaign Tempo)
Supplier Alignment
(to Acquisition Tempo)
What kinds of agility are needed from suppliers?
Capability Alignment
(to Alignment Tempo)What kinds of value
equation are involved here?
9
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Source of coloured squares: Zachman Framework, www.zifa.com
SCOPE(Competitive context)
Planning
BUSINESS MODEL
(Conceptual) Owning
SYSTEM MODEL(Logical)
Designing
TECHNOLOGY MODEL(Physical) Building
DETAILED REPRESENTATION
S(out-of-modeling-context)
Subcontracting
DATA (WHAT) e.g. data
MOTIVATION (WHY)
e.g. strategy
TIME (WHEN)
e.g. schedule
PEOPLE (WHO)
e.g. organisation
NETWORK (WHERE)
e.g. network
FUNCTION (HOW)
e.g. function
The WHY: Decisive Points
The HOW: Tier 1 Primes and Unified Customer
The WHAT: Equipment,
Platforms etc
The WHO/M: Mission Command of Force Structure
COLLABORATIVE MODEL
(Collaboration) Governance
Multiple Enterprises
Multiple Enterprises
USE CONTEXT (WHO for WHOM)
e.g. particular client
Relation to demand
cohesion
Cohesion in relation to
demand/threat situation
EVENT (WHAT)
e.g. things done
Representation of the physical
reality
Representation of the physical
reality
Capability Alignment
(to Alignment Tempo)
10
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Supplier Alignment
Competitive
Collaborative
Type 1+ AgilityDirected
Composition
Workarounds, UORs, etc
Type 2 AgilityCentre-driven Collaboration
Design for Integration
Type 3 AgilityEdge-driven
Collaboration
Design for Flexibility
(Supporting SoSextensibility)
Type 1 AgilityDirected
Composition
Traditional or ‘Smart’ Engineering
Operational AlignmentAnticipated Unanticipated
The divergence of these tempos creates new challenges* for the Defense Enterprise
Operational Alignment
(to Campaign Tempo)
Supplier Alignment
(to Acquisition Tempo)
Capability Alignment
(to Alignment Tempo)
How does the DoD generate the requisite variety of operational behaviours?
How does the role of the supplier fit in?
What kinds of agility are needed from suppliers?
* For more on these, see Boxer, P.J. (2008) SoS Navigator Principles for Sustaining Dynamic Alignment: The Example of U. S. Army Acquisition Strategies and Operational Realities, Special Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2008-SR-027, September 2008
11
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Agenda
The demand for agilityManaging alignmentCreating value for the defense enterpriseChanging the value equation
12
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Value for Defense comes from managing a Double ‘V’
Requirement Solution
System components
Design decomposition
System integration
The cycle creating value for Defence.
Geometries-of-use
1
2
3
4
5
6Military Effects
Composite Capabilities
Joint Command
Force Command Structure and Composite Capabilities
Scenarios and Campaign Plans
Force Elementplus DOTMLPF =Capability gap
minus DOTMLPF =
demand-side
supply-side
Boxer, P.J. (2007) Managing the SoS Value Cycle, January 2007, http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/85
13
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
demand-side
supply-side
Engineering constraints
Pragmatic constraints
This double ‘V’ is layered, spanning the three different kinds of tempo
Campaign Tempo
1
2
3
4
5
6Decisive Points
Joint Command
Agile Force Structure
Force Element
Fielded Equipment
Equipment
Alignment Tempo
Acquisition Tempo
The WHAT
The HOW
The WHO (in relation to) WHOM
The WHY
The nature of this overlap depends on the engineering
constraints being underunder--determining*determining*
Equipment
Fielded Equipment
Force Elements
Composite Capabilities
Synchronization
Effects
* Boxer, P.J. (2008) Framework Architectures, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, June 2008
14
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
demand-side
supply-side
Pragmatic constraints
These contexts-of-use have to be related to the individual capabilities
VarietyVariety of Scenarios
Many-to-many composition
Mission Mission TaskingTaskingDemandDemand for Composite Capabilities
Orchestration of Orchestration of geometriesgeometries--ofof--useuse
Campaign Campaign PlanningPlanningDemandDemand for Synchronization
Effects ladders
Boxer, P.J. et al (2008) “Systems-of-Systems Engineering and the Pragmatics of Demand,” Proceedings of the Second Annual IEEE Systems Conference pp107. Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 7−10, 2008. IEEE, 2008. http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=4518971&arnumber=4519030&count=89&index=58
Force Elements
SupplySupply of Force Elements
Composite Capabilities
5: Joint Command
Effects
Synchronization
6: Decisive Points
4: Agile Force Structure
Destroy Fuel
Reserve
Destroy Bridge 1
Destroy Bridge 2
Reverse River
Crossing
Halt Second EchelonDestroy
Enemy Will
Win the War
Traffic Density Units in BivouacAcceleration of
Straggler Count
River Clear
DMPI 1 DMPI 2
Carpet Bomb
Drop Leaflets
Effects LadderEffects Ladder
15
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Adding the socio-technical perspective in relation to demand extends the analytical space
Information view
Synchronisation view
Equipment viewOrganisation view
Effects view
Socio-technical SoS = SoS foundation + Organization +
Synchronization views
SoS foundation = Equipment and
Information views
The analysis puts the Socio-technical SoS
in relation to an Effects View
16
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
This leads to a different kind of analysis of interoperability…
Source: Anderson, Boxer & Browsword (2006) An Examination of a Structural Modeling Risk Probe Technique, Special Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2006-SR-017, October 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/06.reports/06sr017.html
Special permission to use PAN in this Technical Probe was granted by Boxer Research Limited.
Identifying Interoperability Gaps in the different strata
Analysis of Stratification
Socio-technical SoS in relation to Demand
Functional Functional CouplingCoupling
Demand Demand cohesioncohesion
Accountability Accountability HierarchiesHierarchies
Distinguishing three different kinds of path
1services
know‐how
7 drivers
7b
problem domains
6demand situations
mission situations
5b
5
composition of
orchestrated constituent capabilities
orchestrations of constituent capabilities 4b
constituent capabilities
4
2b
3b
2outcomes 3
1c
super‐structure
1b
direct organisation
0processes
events
6bdata fusion platforms
Analyzing alignment of strata
17
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Agenda
The demand for agilityManaging alignmentCreating value for the defense enterpriseChanging the value equation
18
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
demand-side
supply-side
Spanning the layers means managing different kinds of value equations
Campaign Tempo
1
2
3
4
5
6Decisive Points
Mission Command
Agile Force Structure
Force Element
Fielded Equipment
Equipment
Alignment Tempo
Acquisition Tempo
Supplier
Type 1
Unified Customer + Supplier
Type 2
Military Command + Unified Customer + Supplier
Type 3
19
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The Value Stairs: a progressive development of the value equation model
2Fielded Equipment
Purchaser pre-contractualType I Through
Life-cycle (of equipment or platform)
Arms-length
1
2
3
‘Smart’
Provider subcontracted
Defense Equipment & Support
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
Force Element
Decisive Points
Mission Command
Agile Force Structure
‘Above the customer strategy ceiling’
‘strategy ceiling’
1Equipment
Provider Contract
The purchaser is buying:The purchaser is buying:
Defense Equipment
20
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The Value Stairs: a progressive development of the value equation model
2Fielded Equipment
Purchaser pre-contractualType I Through
Life-cycle (of equipment or platform)
Arms-length
1
2
3
4
5
6
Military Capability across DOTMLPF
Type II Through-Life (equipment- or
platform-based)Capability
TLAM (availability
management)
Operational Military Capability
TLCM (capability
management)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Potential for open-sourcing
1
2
3
‘Smart’
Provider subcontracted
Defense Equipment & Support
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
Force Element
Decisive Points
Mission Command
Agile Force Structure
‘Above the customer strategy ceiling’
‘strategy ceiling’
1Equipment
Provider Contract
The purchaser is buying:The purchaser is buying:
Defense Equipment
21
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
The Value Stairs: a progressive development of the value equation model
2Fielded Equipment
Purchaser pre-contractualType I Through
Life-cycle (of equipment or platform)
Arms-length
1
2
3
4
5
6
Military Capability across DOTMLPF
Operational Mission Capability
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type II Through-Life (equipment- or
platform-based)Capability
TLAM (availability
management)
Operational Military Capability
TLCM (capability
management)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Potential for open-sourcing
1
2
3
‘Smart’
Provider subcontracted
Defense Equipment & Support
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
Force Element
Decisive Points
Mission Command
Agile Force Structure
‘Above the customer strategy ceiling’
‘strategy ceiling’
1Equipment
Provider Contract
The purchaser is buying:The purchaser is buying:
Defense Equipment
The ‘plus’ in TLCM+ indicates that what is being supplied is a SoS the definition of
which is not equipment-based or platform-based
TLCM+
Type III Through-Life CompositeCompositeCapability
22
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Supplier Alignment
Competitive
Collaborative
Type 1+ AgilityDirected
Composition
Workarounds, UORs, etc
Type 2 AgilityCentre-driven Collaboration
Design for Integration
Type 3 AgilityEdge-driven
Collaboration
Design for Flexibility
(Supporting SoSextensibility)
Type 1 AgilityDirected
Composition
Traditional or ‘Smart’ Engineering
Operational AlignmentAnticipated Unanticipated
The value equation must evolve as the demand for the variety of operational behaviors changes
Operational Alignment
(to Campaign Tempo)
Supplier Alignment
(to Acquisition Tempo)
Capability Alignment
(to Alignment Tempo)
How does the role of the supplier fit in?
What kinds of agility are needed from suppliers?
The value equation changes with the nature of the demand*
How does the DoD generate the requisite variety of operational behaviours?
* See Boxer, P.J. (2008) What Price Agility? Managing Through-Life Purchaser-Provider Relationships on the Basis of the Ability to Price Agility, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, September 2008
23
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Making the two models coexistTalking about irregular or asymmetric Talking about irregular or asymmetric warfare and institutionalizing warfare and institutionalizing counterinsurgency skillscounterinsurgency skills, ……
•• How do we institutionalize procurement How do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities of such capabilities –– and the ability to and the ability to get them fielded quicklyget them fielded quickly?
•• Why do we have to go outside the normal Why do we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process?bureaucratic process?
……The challenge is whether in our The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to different paradigms can be made to coexist.coexist.
•• The key is to make sure that the strategy The key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drives the and risk assessment drives the procurement, rather than the other way procurement, rather than the other way aroundaround.
……. . Extracted from speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2008
• These forms of warfare, skills and abilities demand Type III Agility.
• This means modernization ‘+’, in which– Campaign Strategy and
Interoperability Risk Assessment drive procurement.
– The full Double ‘V’ cycle is managed to create value for Defense.
– Suppliers support different value equation models on the value stairs depending on the nature of the demand.
24
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Contact Information
Philip Boxer
Research, Technology and Systems Solutions Program,Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
Email: [email protected]
Mail:Software Engineering Institute4500 Fifth AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15213-2612 USA
25
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
1. New kinds of threat and much wider varieties of demand on mission capabilities are requiring the military to achieve unprecedented levels of agility and responsiveness, and are driving the transformation of military capabilities. 2. The great benefit of net-enablement in this new strategic environment is that it enables mission capabilities to be orchestrated and composed from constituent capabilities within the context of systems of systems.3. The presentation will outline three essential ways in which the foundational nature of the systems engineering task needs to be transformed to take advantage of these new possibilities, and will use examples from various military contexts to illustrate their applicability.
• First, the definition of systems-of-interest also has to give an explicit account of the contexts-of-use from which emerge new forms of demand for mission capability.
• Second, the definition of systems-of-interest has to be extended to include their socio-technical nature. • Third, it has to be possible to analyze how these new forms of demand translate into new patterns of interoperability
(geometries-of-use) across systems of systems, thus defining the agility of systems of systems in terms of the required varieties of geometry-of-use that they must support.
4. The presentation will conclude by considering the impact this has on the suppliers’ role, the acquisition process, and in particular the changes it introduces into how value is defined.
26
The Value Stairs: changing the value equationPhilip Boxer, October 21st 2008© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University
NO WARRANTY THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN “AS-IS" BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.Use of any trademarks in this presentation is not intended in any way to infringe on the rights of the trademark holder.
This Presentation may be reproduced in its entirety, without modification, and freely distributed in written or electronic form without requesting formal permission. Permission is required for any other use. Requests for permission should be directed to the Software Engineering Institute at [email protected].
This work was created in the performance of Federal Government Contract Number FA8721-05-C-0003 with Carnegie Mellon University for the operation of the Software Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center. The Government of the United States has a royalty-free government-purpose license to use, duplicate, or disclose the work, in whole or in part and in any manner, and to have or permit others to do so, for government purposes pursuant to the copyright license under the clause at 252.227-7013.