war-winning capabilities…on time, on cost 1 air armament center mr. deryl israel aac/en integrated...

1

War-winning Capabilities…On Time, On Cost

Air Armament CenterAir Armament Center

Mr. Deryl IsraelAAC/EN

Integrated Program Integrated Program

Assessment StatusAssessment Status

28 February 2008 28 February 2008

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

2


Outline

• Integrated Assessment (IA) Update IA purpose & backgroundProgress since 2007 Industry Day

• Program Sufficiency Review (PSR) summaryFY06-07 activity & resultsLessons learned: How to do better SRsLessons learned: How to build better programs

• Way Ahead: Plans for 2008

3


Assessment Purpose & Background

• Historically, Eglin programs haveCost overruns of 15%-30% Schedule slips of 6-12 months

• Since FY06, deployed and integrated a suite of assessments to execute AAC’s vision--War-winning capabilities… on time, on cost

• Intent is to create and maintain a high-confidence portfolio

4


High-Confidence ProgramsKey Characteristics*

* As Defined by D&SWS design teams

• Good “Should-Cost” Estimate

• Budget/Cost Estimate alignment

• Approved time-phased CDD requirements

• Program office resourcing

• Requirements stability

• Budget stability mechanism

• Incremental program plan

• Short-duration capability release/production schedules

• SDD phase no greater than 6 years

• Tech / manufacturing maturity assessment thresholds met

• Integrated sustainment and depot strategy

• Realistic test planning, Approved IOT&E plan

• Life-cycle acquisition strategy—time certain success incentive

• Executing according to “plan”

• Probability of Program Success (PoPS) measures

5


AFPEO/WP Policy, 23 May 07AAC Integrated Assessments

• These assessments will help us collaborate with our government stakeholders and industry to improve our acquisition processes and align expectations.

• AAC acquisition commanders/directors must effectively employ the assessments during program planning and execution

• Assessment leaders will provide results to the PEO/Deputy PEO, Weapons; commanders or directors of appropriate AAC line units; and the AAC Center Senior Functional owning the assessment being reported.

6


LogisticsHealth

Assessment(LHA)

CostSufficiency

Review(CSR)

Systems Engineering Assessment

(SEA)

ProgramSufficiency

Review(PSR)

TechnologyReadiness & IntegrationAssessment

(TRA)

Probability of Program

Success(PoPS)

Spiral 2 Assessment Engine I

NP

UT

S (

FR

OM

ST

D A

AC

PR

OD

UC

TS

)

Rollout Spring

‘08

ManufacturingReadiness

Assessment(MRA)

Probability of Program

Success(PoPS)

LogisticsHealth

Assessment(LHA)

7


AAC Assessment Life Cycle

CSR

PSR

POM Input MS A MS B MS C Sustainment

PSR(As Required)

MonthlyUpdated

QuarterlyUpdated

TRA’/MRA’

PSR

TRA/MRA’

CSR

SEA

PoPS

PSR

TRA/MRA’

CSR

PoPS

LHA

PoPS

MRA/TRA’(As Required)

CSR(As Required)

SEA

MonthlyUpdated

PoPS

SEA

LHA

PSR

LHA

MRA/TRA’

CSR

SEA

PoPS

8


Progress Since 2007 Industry Day

• Probability of Program Success (PoPS) Consistent monthly updates in SMART Internal audits drive process compliance

• Cost Sufficiency Review Earlier collaboration between staff & programs

• Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Updated guide published 30 Nov 07

• Logistics Health Assessment Increment 1 design complete; approved by AFMC/A4 Increment 2 design to include Pre MS B coverage

• Sufficiency Reviews Co-chaired by AAC/EN, 308th ARSW/CL PoPS-based template; promotes standard work Action item status reported at program reviews

9

War-winning Capabilities…On Time, On CostO N D J F M A M J J A S

AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS

AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS

Realistic Realistic, Carries Risk

FY06 AAC Sufficiency ReviewsFY06 AAC Sufficiency Reviews

COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS

NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS

AAC Totals 20 (13 7 )

G / None

1 2 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 0 2 3

Canceled- major redesign req’d

Contract award: FY10Plan presented at EWSR

AAC/CA Approved Prod

Y / None

User did not include in POM

PDRR on track; JCTD starts FY08

Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes

G / NoneUser requirement withdrawn

Canceled- producibility issues

R / None / FY08 funding issue

Concept provided to SECAFConcept provided to AFSOCConcept provided to ACCConcept provided to ACCAssessment sent to AFMC/CCConcept provided to SOCOMConcept provided to AFSOC

Focused Lethality MunitionWind-Correct Mun Disp-Ext RangeLaser JDAMCovert Resupply (COVERS)BLU-122 Rebaseline

AMRAAM FY08 POMMALD SDD RebaselineAMRAAM RebaselineAir Superiority Target FY08 POMMALD Universal Armament Interface

Munition Assy Conveyor II MS C

ALM MK82 DIMEVery Small MunitionTactical Laser for Airfield DefenseI-500 PenetratorSmall Concept Weapon on PredatorAdaptive Carriage EnterpriseClose Air Support WeaponsHd Tgt Void Sens Fuze Risk Reduct

10

War-winning Capabilities…On Time, On CostO N D J F M A M J J A S

AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS

AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes

Realistic Realistic, Carries Risk

FY07 AAC Sufficiency ReviewsFY07 AAC Sufficiency Reviews

COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS

NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS

AAC Totals 22 (6 16 )

G / None

3 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2

R / None – Awaiting N-M decisionR / None – Awaiting N-M decision

User requirement withdrawn

G / None

Contract award: FY08

Contract award: FY10

AoA eliminated concept

PDRR Contract award: FY10G / None

G / None

G / NoneG / None

G / NoneG / None

Prototype effort: on track

Extended User EvalJCTDUser requirement withdrawnFY08 JCTD; SDD start: FY10

AMSTE-JDAMJASSM-ER RestructureJASSM Maritime InterdictionJDAM ProductionLaser JDAMSDB II Cost (prior to DoD CAIG rvw)SFW Production FY10 POM

AST Business Jet AoAMALD-J SDDAST QF-16 Update

CRIIS Rapid PrototypeJoint Threat EmitterCRIIS Risk Reduction & SDDP5 Combat Training SystemAutomated Remote Transport SysCRIIS Test & Training

Adv Tactical Laser Ext User EvalHard Tgt Void Sensing Fuze JCTDMassive Ordnance Penetrator QRCHard Tgt Void Sensing Fuze

11


AAC Portfolio Performance

2006 Overall Program Health

13

11

89

1112 12

14

1211 11

12

6

7

98

87

6

5

67

87

01

2 21 1

32

3 32 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months Red ProgramsYellow ProgramsGreen ProgramsProgram Rebaselines: 3

12


2007 Overall Program Health

1011 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

12 12 12

54 4

34 4 4 4 4 2 2 2

1 1 12

1 1 1 1 12 2 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MonthsRed ProgramsYellow ProgramsGreen Programs

AAC Portfolio Performance

Program Rebaselines: 2

13


Lessons LearnedHow to do better Sufficiency Reviews

Do:• Employ cross-functional approach when completing assessments• Use proper versions of process guides/tools (e.g. PoPS spreadsheet)• Conduct sufficient “deep dives” into appropriate individual assessments• Address weaponeering & mission planning across entire life cycle• Present efficient and effective test plans built with CTA & RTO inputs• Incentivize supplier decision processes when transitioning to production • Identify opportunities to validate manufacturing processes• Carefully select cost/schedule benchmarks• Conduct thorough Cost SRs prior to Program SRs• Use PoPS results in Program SRs to identify, communicate risks

Don’t:• Assume all AAC programs will be low-risk efforts • Over-optimistically evaluate programs• View Cost and Program SRs as the IG; they are home team help

14


Assessments Becoming AF Tools

• AAC leaders assigned to AFSO21 Develop & Sustain Warfighting Systems (D&SWS) teams

Ms Stokley, AAC/CA, co-sponsored Life Cycle Management; Oversight/Command & Control teams

Ms Rutledge, 708ARSG/CL; Mr Mistretta, AAC/EN; Tech Development team Mr Walley, 918ARSG/DD; Life Cycle Management team

• Assessments endorsed by AFMC/CC; SAF/AQ to create & maintain high-confidence programs

PoPS: key risk management tool & metric TRAs/MRAs: enable “stage gating” milestones SEA: moving toward AFMC-wide application LHA: Sponsored by AFMC/A4 Sufficiency Reviews: req’d at key decision points AF-level Implementation planning now underway

15


Building Better ProgramsAttaining High Confidence

* Proposed by D&SWS design teams

• Better transition planning, decisions via technology and manufacturing assessments, PoPS, Pre-MS B risk reduction phase*

• Iterative requirements that evolve, provide trade space prior to MS B*

• Stable requirements for a given increment*• Realistic resourcing ($$ and people)*• Risk-based source selections*• Strong, consistent Systems Engineering processes*• Incremental development w/ discrete offramps*• Incentivize sustainment (affordability/availability)*• Proactive risk management*• Early, active test community involvement in test planning• Up-front weaponeering & mission planning—and resources

16


Way Ahead: 2008 Plans

• Share AAC processes/lessons learned via D&SWS Enable running start at other centers Facilitate PoPS training at other Centers Personnel from other Centers attend AAC IA events

• Design LHA Increment 2 (supports pre-MS B efforts)• Align AAC IA improvements with D&SWS

Integrate near-term AFMC; SAF/AQ decisions Minimize scrap & rework as AF standards adopted Continue process standardization

• Leverage assessments to streamline doc prep Summarize key results in AAC Expectation Mgt Agreements Use assessment products to streamline Life Cycle Mgt Plan

creation/updates via Zero Based Documentation pilots

war-winning capabilities…on time, on cost 1 air armament center mr. deryl israel aac/en integrated...

Documents