www.ATIcourses.com

Boost Your Skills with On-Site Courses Tailored to Your Needs The Applied Technology Institute specializes in training programs for technical professionals. Our courses keep you current in the state-of-the-art technology that is essential to keep your company on the cutting edge in today’s highly competitive marketplace. Since 1984, ATI has earned the trust of training departments nationwide, and has presented on-site training at the major Navy, Air Force and NASA centers, and for a large number of contractors. Our training increases effectiveness and productivity. Learn from the proven best. For a Free On-Site Quote Visit Us At: http://www.ATIcourses.com/free_onsite_quote.asp For Our Current Public Course Schedule Go To: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

2

CONOPS Can Uncover Requirements

“I recently released a CONOPs developed in parallel with an early requirements-and-design concept development effort. This CONOPs was initially resisted, believed unnecessary by several principals. When it was completed two months later (using the outline and training provided by Solid Thinking), we had identified a number of mismatched (and unspoken) expectations, and identified on the order of forty new requirements. One of the key original skeptics [said], "This is one of the best CONOPS I've ever seen". The CONOPs is now a key system document.”

(Lockheed Martin engineer, 2006)

Organizations Now Using STC’s CONOPS Outlines

• UAE GHQ• HQ USAF Air Combat Command A2• USN Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, FL• Defense Intelligence Agency• US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)• Swedish Submarine Forces• Italian General Staff and Center for Defense Innovation• Hungarian Ministry of Defense• Danish MOD, Intelligence Directorate• Boeing, Raytheon Missiles, Northrop Grumman, MITRE, Booz

Allen Hamilton, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, others

3Copyright STC March 2008. All

rights reserved.

Your Clients Know Good CONOPS

• Are required for all DOD/DHS programs

• Can rally users and politicians to help save a threatened program

• Save money

• Save time

• Deliver better product/service to USERS, sooner, with living documentation, training, employment tips, support community

• Provide faster, less expensive upgrades that are easier to justify and fund

• Sometimes save lives

Your Clients Already Benefit From CONOPS

• Used throughout federal and state government agencies (assisted by BAH, MITRE, SAIC, others)

• Used for system development, reorganizations, exercises, missions, etc.

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

5

So Clients Expect You to . . .

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

6

• Help build effective CONOPS

• Participate on CONOPS teams

• Guide R&D, modeling & sim

• Counsel to avoid common pitfalls

CONOPS

Training Programs

User Manuals *OpCon

AV-Xs OV-Xs

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), OPORDS, EXORDs, Ops Assessments

TTPs

Personas, Use Cases & Scenarios

Lessons Learned

* Operators, maintainers, SysAdmin & downstream product users all need User Manuals

Architecture

Personas & Scenarios

Features Left Out & Obsolescence Analyses

Scenarios

OpCon Text, Scenarios,Regular Input From Users

Copyright STC 2010. All rights reserved.

In DOD an OpCon and User- Focused CONOPSAre the Linchpins

Requirements

Effects-Based SEDOD/DHSReviews

DODAF

SV-Xs

Effects-Based Solutions,Regular Input From Users,Modeling & Simulation

CBAs JCIDS

Future Concepts (e.g. JOpsC)

Scenarios, CurrentSystem/Situation, Justif for Delta, Summary of Impacts

Evolutionary Increments: P3I & ECPs

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

7

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved. 8

CONOPS Important for Long-Duration Dev’t Projects

“ Mack, the real benefit to doing thorough CONOPS here is continuity. On programs that last for years we have a turnover of PMs, lead engineers, in fact of the ENTIRE staff, sometimes several times. Our CONOPS now provide an easy-to-understand, unbiased record of what we did, why we did it, why we are doing what we have underway at any given time. CONOPS here are a “touchstone” for EVERYONE on our major projects.”

(Sr. Engineer at Raytheon, 2008)

Special Supplementto Technical CONOPS Courses

“Users” Exist in Lots of Flavors

To Which of Them Should We Listen As We Build CONOPS and Design Systems?

US DOD Photo

What we need is a machine to carry 100 pounds of water and ammo for each of us!

If I could just find a better way to initially treat

wounded troops without exposing medics to small

arms fire!For the next

war, we need to design a much

better MEDIVAC chain with faster response time,

even under fire!

These People Are Users and Operators With

Valid Viewpoints

Basic Definitions

• User does something with the output of a system (for example “operations”), or supports those who use that output (“maintenance”).

• Surrogate User: Not a current user of the system (headquarters staffer; retired military and now a defense contractor)

• Operator (always also users): Manipulates some aspect of the system, especially its controls (fly it, drive it, or otherwise employ it)

• All operators are also users

• Very few users are also operators

Deeper Definitions

• End Users: Far end, downstream users of the output of the system

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users: Use some output of the system but may not directly control it’s employment

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users): Headquarters/COCOM staffers who set requirements that procurement system finds and buys

• Operators (always Users): Manipulate some aspect of the system (fly it, drive it, or otherwise employ it)

• End Users: US Army Lieutenant and his troops watching video and in contact with hostile forces

US Army Photo

Example: Unmanned Aerial Systems in DOD

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users: US Army Colonel at Air Operations Center using imagery for raid planning

US Air Force Photo

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users): Air Combat Command A8/9 planning exercises and recommending new procurements

STC Photo

• Operators (also Users): Remote “pilots” flying the air vehicles and operating sensors

Predator Control Van (USAF Photo)

Hunter Airfield Controls (STC Photo)

Shadow Downlink & Controls (US Army Photo)

Warrior Alpha Control Van (US Army Photo)

To Which “Users” Should We Listen?

• End Users?

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users?

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users)?

• Operators (also Users)?

End Users Mid-StreamUsers

Requirements Writers

Operators

Pros of Recruiting/Listening to

Them

• The Realpeople at tip of spear

• Rewarding to support combat troops/1st

responders

• Visible advocates,able to impact req’ts

• Can drive new COCOM IPLs

• Write req’ts and can drive/divert $$$

• Drive long term contracts for system dev’t

• Immediate impact on combat effort

• Rewarding to supportoperators

Cons of Recruiting/Listening to

Them

• Focused on fighting today’s war, not often impacted by R&D

• Often have no $$$

High pressure job, many “bosses”, often at odds with established contractors and programs

• Focused on equipping troops to fight future wars (5-15 years out)

• Requires dedicated, long term effort to influence

• System OEM is king

• Other programs can be threat to current system and its improvements long term

Good CONOPS Gets Support From Each Group With Special Emphasis When Needed

• End Users when your system/enhancement fixes a problem for troops in contact on today’s battlefield (make CONOPS section 3 especially strong since end users will focus on this)

• Mid-Stream/Dispersed Users when your system improves effectiveness of system’s utility for non-operators and non-end-users who use its outputs

• Requirements Writers (often Surrogate Users) when your system/enhancement will help force posture or combat capabilities for conflicts 5-15 years in future

• Operators (are also Users) when your system/enhancement improves controllability or flexibility of the system by its manipulators.

Lastly: Inputs From Surrogate Users Should ALWAYS Be Welcomed

• Viewpoints can vary widely with backgrounds and experiences

• Even (sometimes especially) dated experience can be instructive

• Weight the advice based on source’s level of experience, span of experience, reputation and the input’s applicability to the system/issues

• Always capture and retain the advice/ideas.

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved. 21

End User’s Real Interests*• I don’t speak “contracts” or “requirements” and I don’t

completely trust people who do• I don’t really trust people who have no military experience

because I doubt if they understand my needs• I want a system that works as advertised, first time and every

time; is easy to upgrade in the field; links seamlessly with other systems/networks

• I need the system to be easy to use when I am stressed out and sleepless for 48 hours

• I want the government to buy a full-up system, with training and spares and factory support whenever I need it

• The headquarters folks do not understand current users’ needs and they don’t really speak for me and the other end users

• I seldom get asked about system requirements and even then my words are watered down (made “P.C.”) by MAJCOM or others

* Results from Solid Thinking’s ongoing survey of defense professionals

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved. 22

To Work Best With End Users

• Show effort to fix broken systems

• Listen to their frustrations and help tackle them

• Go visit field units, observe ops, ask questions & listen: be empathic

Failure-Proofing Your Project/Program

SBI Example (of 5 examples discussed in the CONOPS course)

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

24

Solid Thinking’s “Fielding Probability” Assessment System

• Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing need, meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement, has clear OpCon & CONOPS

• Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in key Congressmen’s districts

• Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

25

Solid Thinking’s Scoring System

0 – Normal text on slides: Did not meet criteria

1 - Underlined text: Met criteria

2- Bold text on slides: Exceeded criteria

[brackets] show key points

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

26

Solid Thinking’s Fielding “Probability Assessment System” (PAS)

Teaching Examples• Automated Feature Extraction for Imagery• Radar Processing Mode• Hyperspectral Imaging System • Acoustic Absorbent Tile for Armored Vehicles• Tactical ELINT System *• Border Surveillance System in Southern US *• ATC Systems in Europe *• ISR Information Service: Doing it Right! *

* Discussed in 2-day and 3-day courses

Without discussing specific nations, firms or technologies, what went wrong or what should have been done?

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

27

Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”for $860M DHS Program• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers• Four unattended ground sensors• Seventy SAT phones• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms• Data fused at C2 Center

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

28

Project 28 – Launch “Prototype”for $860M DHS Program

• Nine mobile radar/sensor towers• Four unattended ground sensors• Seventy SAT phones• Fifty Vehicles with secure laptops and comms

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

29

Project 28 Problems Cited in Feb 08 Report from GAO

• Cameras working at less than ½ expected ranges (drives total numbers and locations of towers required, other sensors, etc.)

• Radars being falsely triggered by rain

• Radar data taking too long to display at C2 nodes

• COTS C2 S/W probably not appropriate for intended use

• Wrong contract vehicle used: FFP Task Order contract used for an R&D / demo project

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

30

What Did Boeing and the

US Border Patrol Do Right?

• Realized they were building a complex system in a politically-charged atmosphere

• Talked to users

• Got feedback from users on overall system capabilities

• Suitability-tested components

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

31

What Went Wrong?

User-inputs did not catch errors of omission and commission. Why not? We don’t know. Some possible reasons:

• Wrong “users” were involved (perhaps surrogate users)? • Users were involved at the wrong times to impact system design? • Wrong (subtly biased?) questions were asked of the users?• Users were not involved in building subsystem requirements or test plans?• Entire requirements approach was unstructured, users’ inputs were not

properly solicited, timed or managed and no CONOPS was generated?????

Copyright Solid Thin All Rights Reserved.

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

32

0 - Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated COCOM/MAJCOM requirement, has clear OpCon & CONOPS

1 - Answers Key Organizations’ Needs - preserves service/agency’s budget and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly support other service/coalition partner), Joint Service, employs people in key Congressmen’s districts

0 - Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level managers’ support (aka Iron Majors), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs

Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-0

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

33

Result: Prototype RejectedBiggest Loser: US Citizens, now less secure

• Government’s position: We trusted the US’s premier integrator of complex systems (Boeing) who had the DHS Director’s support and plenty of money to do this.

• Developer’s probable position: This was a prototype, from which we were learning about technologies, system integration enhancements needed, etc. We should have stressed that “prototype” status. And we should have taken a CPFF development contract for the R&D part of this job.)

Copyright STC March 2008. All rights reserved.

34

Project 28 Prototype’s Score 0-1-0What Else SHOULD Have Been Done?

0 - Meets Key Users’ Need - saves lives, saves money, answers a long-standing need (border security), meets serious emerging need, makes current job easier, permits new capability against today’s threat, permits new capability against tomorrow’s threat, meets validated requirement, clear OpCon and CONOPS

1 - Answers Key Organization’s Need - preserves service/agency’s budget and/or power base, visibly supports parent org’s goals, lets service visibly support other service/coalition partner

0 - Offers an Executable Program - helps fight today’s conflict, has senior decision makers’ support (who have discretionary budget), has mid-level managers’ support (Border Patrol Agents), has ops users’ support, championed by thought leaders, affordable now, fits existing force structure, supportive of other strong program(s), non-competitive with other strong programs, ties to ongoing and successful science and technology programs

C. Boeing should have implemented process for frequent “rudder check” from USBP FIELD AGENTS, not just HQ folks

B. No brainer

D. DHS accepted prototype, then made Boeing dump it: makes Chertoff’s supporters look silly

A. Should’ve controlled expectations a la “prototype” status

B. No brainer

A. Should’ve controlled expectations a la “prototype” status