SYST/OR 699 Master’s Project –Proposal

Department of Defense Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool Enhancements

Prepared by Craig Jayson, Josh Singh, and Phillip Sutton

for Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.

i

Proposal Agreement This proposal outlines the scope of work that the George Mason Graduate Students Capstone Team will

perform and deliver for the sponsor, Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (SPA); specifically, the Operational

Support Analysis Group (OSAG). Chris Anderson is the client of this project and will have signatory

approval over this proposal for SPA.

Chris Anderson, SPA Date

Craig Jayson, GMU Date

Josh Singh, GMU Date

Phil Sutton, GMU Date

Table of Contents Proposal Agreement ............................................................................................................................................................ i

Problem Definition .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sponsorship ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposal Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Project Purpose and Objective..................................................................................................................................... 3

Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Scope .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Requirements .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Technical Approach and Expected Results ............................................................................................................. 7

Program Management .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Deliverables........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendix A- References .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix B- Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Budget Activity 1, Basic Research ......................................................................................................................... 11

Budget Activity 2, Applied Research .................................................................................................................... 11

Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD)..................................................................... 11

Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) .................................. 12

Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) ............................................................ 12

Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support ............................................................................................ 12

Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development ....................................................................................... 12

Appendix C- Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 13

1

Problem Definition

Sponsorship Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (SPA) is a professional services contractor located in Alexandria, VA.

The company was founded in 1972 and initially worked primarily for the U.S. Navy leading many technical

support studies. Today the company has evolved into a contractor who provides services to cover a wide

range of missions and clients in the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and Department of Energy.

SPA has permitted the Joint Air Force & Analysis Division (JTAAD), and specifically the Operations Support

Analysis Group (OSAG) to continue their sponsorship of the educational capstone project initiated in

October 2016 to continue enhancements of the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool (BEAT).

Proposal Purpose The purpose of this proposal is to agree on the scope of the project and the deliverables due at the end of the

spring 2017 semester. The parties in agreement for all matters related to this proposal include SPA,

specifically OSAG, and the GMU Capstone team of Craig Jayson, Josh Singh, and Phil Sutton.

Background The DoD Budget, a discretionary budget authority to fund the department of defense, is significant in terms

of dollars apportioned. As of 2015, the U.S. defense spending is equivalent to the next seven largest military

budgets – India, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China- combined. In 2016, over

$580 billion was allocated to fund the DoD seen in Figure 1 (source defense.gov).

The budget is nested with the National Military Strategy and the President’s budget request and reflects the

strategic outlook and operational commitments necessary to fight and win in any future conflicts. Addressing

the multiple strategic challenges and threats, whether it is North Korean aggression or China island building,

the budget considers new and innovative ways to meet mission requirements. The U.S. must remain a

modernized, technologically superior global force with the capability to project power and respond to

contingences. As former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated, “even as we fight today’s fights, we must

also be prepared for the fights that might come in 10, 20, or 30 years”.

Since 2014, following Secretary of Defense Hagel’s Innovation Initiative, there has been a push to invest

monies in finding capabilities that have the potential to provide a technological offset against near peer

2

competitors. This offset strategy has led to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Work, creating a

deterrence panel that continues to evaluate an offset strategy. One of the major efforts that the deterrence

panel is mandated to focus on is the evaluation of technologies and capabilities that are intended to address

both capability gaps and technological opportunities that would reinvigorate the U.S. dominance in power

projection. Capabilities of interest for the panel include: multi-domain fires, electronic and cyber warfare,

manned-unmanned systems, robotics, undersea warfare, hypersonic munitions, advanced engineering, among

others.

The DoD budget is divided into seven distinct budget appropriation categories. One of the categories is the

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget; which is that portion of the DoD budget

that focuses on Science and Technology (S&T) and prototype development. Since FY00, the amount

appropriated to the DoD RDT&E budget has ebbed and flowed in line with national security concerns and

overseas military activities. Currently, this appropriation is 11.8% of the total DoD budget, or $69 billion.

It is this RDT&E appropriation category that the previous GMU Capstone Group gathered DoD Budget

data on and developed a tool, known as the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool (BEAT), to begin analyzing multi-

year budget data.1 The previous group drilled-down to the Program Element (PE) level for each U.S. military

service. The figure below summarizes the level of detail at which the previous project group scoped the

problem to.

1 The Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool allows users to quickly identify Program Elements within RDT&E using historic data and to

visualize the individual budget trends over time using Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) projected data.

(Source DoD.gov)

3

Problem Statement Prior to the efforts of the Fall 2016 Capstone team, there was no known method or available tool to digest

and depict multiple budget cycles (the current year plus four future years known as the Program Objective

Memorandum2) to facilitate the analysis and characterization of past, current, and/or future budget

information. The Fall 2016 Capstone team was successful in aggregating budget data into a database and

creating an Excel tool that preformed such analysis at the PE level. Understanding that there is important

information available at the more granular project level, the BEAT analysis has the capacity to provide further

information and insights, but currently that capability has not been realized.

Project Purpose and Objective The purpose of the project is to provide budget analysis and assessment at the project level, one level down

from the PE level, of selected RDT&E programs. The programs should coincide with strategy/policy offset

capabilities/technologies.

The objective of this project is to enhance the BEAT to incorporate project level data to facilitate a finer

analysis of budget trends. The enhancements will allow the stakeholders and users to identify and view trends

happening to selected projects that support the DoD’s offset strategy. The BEAT will maintain its current

ability to ingest new data as it becomes available and the new project data will be mapped to the appropriate

program data. Additionally, new visualizations and user interface will be developed to provide additional

information and ease the use of tool application.

ID projects of interest within the program elements based on DoD policy on future techs

that support an offset strategy.

Forecast future budget trends of predetermined projects over next 5 years.

ID specific accomplishments of interest within applicable projects.

Compare a new Program Budget (PB) ingestion to the previous year’s PB to determine if

new program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended.

2 The Program Objective Memorandum is the 5-year Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and presents the Services and Defense

Agencies proposal on how they will balance their allocation of available resources. The POM includes an analysis of missions, objectives, alternative methods to accomplish objectives, and allocation of resources.

4

Stakeholders

The President and Congress- The DoD submits an annual budget request to the President for review. The

President then submits a budget request to Congress. This request is reviewed and subjected to a process of

revisions before it is returned to the President, at which point it is either signed into law or vetoed. The

President and Congress have a vested interest in seeing that budget meets policy.

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)- Primary defense policy advisor to the President and responsible

for formulating and executing policy through the DoD. The secretariats within OSD handle and submit the

final DoD budget to the President. The BEAT can potentially support DoD decision analysis.

Services (DoD)- This includes the Services and the S&T community. They receive the tech. and support

and collaborate with multiple stakeholders. They are the end users and the primary recipients of the RDT&E

dollars.

Communities of Interest (COIs)- A network of technical groups that integrate with experience and

technical expertise within DoD. They serve a collaboration mechanism to get interested stakeholders to

communicate on projects in future tech.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated

Research Centers (UARCs)- Research partnerships in which the DoD is the sponsor of a research facility

which is under the administration of either a corporate entity (FFRDCs) or a University. They provide the

backbone of studies as it relates to RDT&E and application to policy.

Industry- Private entities whose interests and level of involvement with the DoD vary significantly. Some

provide the product or service, prototype development, or test data of a specific or system of systems. There

are also contractors who provide consulting or advising services. This is the military industrial complex that

support the development of the specific idea, component, or end item.

(Source gmuseorspa.wordpress.com)

5

Scope As previously mentioned, the Fall 2016 Capstone team led an effort to obtain DoD budgeting data from the

RDT&E appropriation level to the PE level for all services and accounting lines within DoD. The team

created the BEAT to analyze the data using charts and graphs. Additionally, the team scoped the project to

include only three of the seven budget activities: Budget Activity 2, 3 and 4 (the definitions for each Budget

Activity are found in the Definition Appendix). Overall, this initial effort was the first of many future

endeavors to develop a Decision Management System using the BEAT and DoD budgeting data to better

predict future RDT&E investment dollars.

The scope of this project is to continue with the work of moving forward toward final development of a

Decision Management System for DoD budget analysis. The project team for Spring 2017 Capstone team

will focus on taking the PEs and continuing to add to the database by including all project level data for as

many PEs as appropriate. The PEs chosen will depend initially on whether the PE is in-line with OSD-Policy

determination of capabilities/technologies that are central to an offset strategy. For instance, the PE

associated with Advanced Aerospace Systems is a PE that OSD-Policy is interested in potentially adding

future dollars towards in meeting future deterrence requirements.

The team will drill one level down into the project level of Advanced Aerospace Systems and gather all

project level data. The team will also begin to focus on accomplishment level data, which is one level down

from project level data. The figure below provides an illustration of what the scope will entail.

There are natural scoping mechanisms built into the budget nomenclature and taxonomy

used to build the budget documents. The team will us this scoping mechanism to continue

work from previous Capstone Team.

6

There are several critical assumptions that are required to scope the problem to the needs of the sponsor.

1) The Project Data is readily accessible and does not require infeasible time for download and transfer

to the database.

2) The team will have access to OSD-Policy offset strategy future techs/capabilities.

3) The team will be able to relate OSD-Policy offset techs/capabilities to PE and follow-on project

level data.

4) The accomplishment level data is available; classified data will be avoided.

Requirements Mission Requirements

MR1: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest project level information and data from DoD

documents.

MR2: The BEAT system shall ingest project level description information for each project.

MR3: The BEAT system shall ingest five future years of expected project level data.

MR4: The BEAT system shall be able to ingest accomplishment level data for specific projects.

MR5: The BEAT system shall visualize RDT&E, specifically project level data, over a pre-

determined period.

MR6: The BEAT system shall be able to display Program Budget (PB) new

program/project/accomplishments have started anew or ended

System Requirements

SR1: The BEAT system shall generate project level data (R-2) for predetermined Program Elements.

SR2: The BEAT system shall generate project level description for Program Elements.

SR3: The BEAT system shall generate accomplishment level data based on specific project level.

SR4: The BEAT system shall aggregate budget data for each Program Element.

SR5: The BEAT system shall display project level data over time.

SR6: The BEAT system shall display new PB ingestion to the previous year’s PB to determine if new

program/project/accomplishments have started anew or have ended.

Functional Requirements

FR1: The BEAT system shall have ability to create a plot that visualizes specific project level data

over time.

FR2: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes significant “outliers” of

project level data.

FR3: The BEAT system shall have the ability to create a plot that visualizes accomplishment

“outliers”.

FR4: The BEAT system shall monitor a minimum of five RDT&E budget cycles.

FR5: The BEAT system shall aggregate specific project level data.

FR6: The BEAT system shall not consider discontinued PEs in project level analysis.

FR7: The BEAT system shall consider PB data and determine which

program/project/accomplishment data has started new or have completed.

7

Technical Approach and Expected Results As a result of the work done in the previous semester, there is an existing database architecture in place that

stores the DoD budget information at the PE level. The database is created using the XML files that are

available from the DoD through Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) which are then parsed via a

Java program. Currently the database only ingests program level data, however, the project and

accomplishment data is also available in the same XML files.

The DoD budget information is available in two different formats R-1 and R-2. The R-2 data contains data

specific to each program and serves as the item justification for each program. That justification also provides

detailed information on the projects within each program. Therefore our analysis will be most interested in

dissecting the R-2 XML files to retrieve the requisite project level information.

Example Project Level Data

The initial effort of this project will be to expand the current data absorption from only program level data to

include project and accomplishment information. In order to accomplish this, modification to the Java code

will be created to absorb the project information. Once the Java file is updated, the database will house all

required information in a structured format to be easily exported to csv files, which can then be imported into

the BEAT tool.

Once the data has been properly housed, part two of the project will be to expand the capabilities within the

BEAT tool to visualize the new information. Additional visualizations will be developed and VBA will be

leveraged to provide user friendly interfaces to create and modify the visualizations. There currently exists a

user form that is used for updating the program element that should be plotted.

Upon completion of our support, the database will have an updated structure and parsing program to ingest

project level data. That new data will be housed in a structured format that can be easily exported into a csv

file for upload into additional data analysis programs, specifically the Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool.

Additionally, the BEAT tool will contain new visualizations pertaining to the project level information to

provide meaningful insights into trends within the RDT&E community.

8

Program Management The team will use either Microsoft Project, Microsoft Edraw, or Innoslate Software to manage the Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS) and project schedule. The proposed WBS is broken into four high level phases;

Analysis, Design, Implementation, and Verification.

The team will further define the project cost and schedule upon customer approval of the proposal. Once

requirements have been agreed upon by the customer, the WBS will be updated to account for the price of

the contract. The Statement of Work (SOW) will serve as a baseline for the work to be performed by the

team. A preliminary detailed schedule with each phase in the WBS further expanded to list all the tasks that

shall be completed is displayed below with a tentative completion date of May 12, 2017.

BEAT Enhancement

Analysis Design Implementation Verification

8

9

Deliverables The team is currently scheduling a minimum of three customers+ facing meetings to review progress that is

being made. The team will provide SPA with a written report and brief the results of the research and analysis

obtained. The team will continue to refine and develop BEAT to fit the newly derived needs of SPA. The

team will also update the BEAT user manual. Each deliverable will identify future budget trends that are

nested with the Office of Secretary of Defense’s offset strategy more specifically by identifying specific

accomplishments of interest within applicable projects.

The project team shall provide the following deliverable items:

1) BEAT continued refinement and project level data uploaded

2) BEAT user interface improvement with ability to visualize new information

3) BEAT user manual updated

4) BEAT test/use case for final report

5) Written report and briefing summarizing results of the analysis

6) Listing of all sources

7) Identification of specific accomplishments of interest within applicable projects

8) Identification of future budget trends of projects that are nested with Office of Secretary of

Defense’s offset strategy

10

Appendix A- References American Association for the Advancement of Science 2016 [3] - Govini. No Date.

DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 2B, Chapter 5

Department of Defense (DoD) Releases Fiscal Year 2017 President’s Budget Proposal

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) – www.dtic.mil

GMUSEORSPA at https://gmuseorspa.wordpress.com/deliverables/

Military budget of the United States, Wikipedia

"US Department of Defense Third Offset Standard Market Taxonomy." Analyst Report, Washington, D.C.

11

Appendix B- Definitions Budget Activity 1, Basic Research Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental

aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in

mind. It includes all scientific study and experimentation directed toward increasing fundamental knowledge

and understanding in those fields of the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to

long-term national security needs. It is farsighted high payoff research that provides the basis for

technological progress. Basic research may lead to: (a) subsequent applied research and advanced technology

developments in Defense-related technologies, and (b) new and improved military functional capabilities in

areas such as communications, detection, tracking, surveillance, propulsion, mobility, guidance and control,

navigation, energy conversion, materials and structures, and personnel support. Program elements in this

category involve pre-Milestone A efforts

Budget Activity 2, Applied Research Applied research is systematic study to understand the means to meet a recognized and specific national

security requirement. It is a systematic application of knowledge to develop useful materials, devices, and

systems or methods. It may include design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes

to meet general mission area requirements. Applied research translates promising basic research into solutions

for broadly defined military needs, short of system development. This type of effort may vary from systematic

mission-directed research beyond that in Budget Activity 1 to sophisticated breadboard hardware, study,

programming and planning efforts that establish the initial feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions to

technological challenges. It includes studies, investigations, and non-system specific technology efforts. The

dominant characteristic is that applied research is directed toward general military needs with a view toward

developing and evaluating the feasibility and practicality of proposed solutions and determining their

parameters. Applied Research precedes system specific research. Program control of the Applied Research

program element is normally exercised by general level of effort. Program elements in this category involve

pre-Milestone B efforts, also known as Concept and Technology Development phase tasks, such as concept

exploration efforts and paper studies of alternative concepts for meeting a mission need.

Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development (ATD) This budget activity includes development of subsystems and components and efforts to integrate subsystems

and components into system prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment. ATD

includes concept and technology demonstrations of components and subsystems or system models. The

models may be form, fit and function prototypes or scaled models that serve the same demonstration

purpose. The results of this type of effort are proof of technological feasibility and assessment of subsystem

and component operability and producibility rather than the development of hardware for service use.

Projects in this category have a direct relevance to identified military needs. Advanced Technology

Development demonstrates the general military utility or cost reduction potential of technology when applied

to different types of military equipment or techniques. Program elements in this category involve pre-

Milestone B efforts, such as system concept demonstration, joint and Service-specific experiments or

Technology Demonstrations. Projects in this category do not necessarily lead to subsequent development or

procurement phases.

12

Budget Activity 4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P) Efforts necessary to evaluate integrated technologies, representative modes or prototype systems in a high

fidelity and realistic operating environment are funded in this budget activity. The ACD&P phase includes

system specific efforts that help expedite technology transition from the laboratory to operational use.

Emphasis is on proving component and subsystem maturity prior to integration in major and complex

systems and may involve risk reduction initiatives. Program elements in this category involve efforts prior to

Milestone B and are referred to as advanced component development activities and include technology

demonstrations. Completion of Technology Readiness Levels 6 and 7 should be achieved for major

programs. Program control is exercised at the program and project level. A logical progression of program

phases and development and/or production funding must be evident in the FYDP.

Budget Activity 5, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) SDD programs have passed Milestone B approval and are conducting engineering and manufacturing

development tasks aimed at meeting validated requirements prior to full-rate production. This budget activity

is characterized by major line item projects and program control is exercised by review of individual programs

and projects. Prototype performance is near or at planned operational system levels. Characteristics of this

budget activity involve mature system development, integration and demonstration to support Milestone C

decisions, and conducting live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) and initial operational test and evaluation

(IOT&E) of production representative articles. A logical progression of program phases and development

and production funding must be evident in the FYDP consistent with the Department's full funding policy.

Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support

This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or

modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test

ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft

and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity.

Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate

projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or Advanced Technology Development

program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are

included.

Budget Activity 7, Operational System Development

This budget activity includes development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received

approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year.

All items are major line item projects that appear as RDT&E Costs of Weapon System Elements in other

programs. Program control is exercised by review of individual projects. Programs in this category involve

systems that have received Milestone C approval. A logical progression of program phases and development

and production funding must be evident in the FYDP, consistent with the Department's full funding policy.

13

Appendix C- Acronyms

ACD&P Advance Component Development & Prototypes

ATD Advance Technology Development

BEAT Budget Exhibit Analysis Tool

DoD Department of Defense

FYDP Future Year Defense Program

GMU George Mason University

JTAAD Joint Airforce and Analysis Division

LFT&E Live Fire Test & Evaluation

MR Mission Requirement

OSAG Operations Support Analysis Group

OSD Office of Secretary of Defense

PB Program Budget

PE Program Element

POM Program Objective Memorandum

RDT&E Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation

SDD System Development and Demonstration

SOW Statement of Work

SPA Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.

SR System Requirement

S&T Science & Technology

WBS Work Breakdown Structure