Mr. Deryl Israel

1
Integrated Program Assessment Status 28
February 2008
Air Armament Center

• Mr. Deryl Israel
• AAC/EN

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A Approved for public
release distribution is unlimited.
2
Outline

• Integrated Assessment (IA) Update
• IA purpose background
• Progress since 2007 Industry Day
• Program Sufficiency Review (PSR) summary
• FY06-07 activity results
• Lessons learned How to do better SRs
• Lessons learned How to build better programs
• Way Ahead Plans for 2008

3
Assessment Purpose Background

• Historically, Eglin programs have
• Cost overruns of 15-30
• Schedule slips of 6-12 months
• Since FY06, deployed and integrated a suite of
  assessments to execute AACs vision--War-winning
  capabilities on time, on cost
• Intent is to create and maintain a
  high-confidence portfolio

4
High-Confidence ProgramsKey Characteristics

• 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 IOTE plan
• Life-cycle acquisition strategytime certain
  success incentive
• Executing according to plan
• Probability of Program Success (PoPS) measures

As Defined by DSWS design teams
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
Spiral 2 Assessment Engine
Logistics Health Assessment (LHA)
Technology Readiness Integration Assessment (
TRA)
Systems Engineering Assessment (SEA)
Program Sufficiency Review (PSR)
Probability of Program Success (PoPS)
Probability of Program Success (PoPS)
Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA)
Cost Sufficiency Review (CSR)
7
AAC Assessment Life Cycle
POM Input
MS A
MS B
MS C
Sustainment
TRA/ MRA
MRA/ TRA (As Required)
TRA/ MRA
CSR (As Required)
CSR
CSR
SEA
SEA
Quarterly
Updated
LHA
LHA
Monthly
Updated
PoPS
PoPS
PoPS
Monthly
Updated
PSR
PSR (As Required)
PSR
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
FY06 AAC Sufficiency Reviews
Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes
AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS
Canceled- major redesign reqd
User requirement withdrawn
Canceled- producibility issues
AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS
User did not include in POM
Contract award FY10
Plan presented at EWSR
COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS
AAC/CA Approved Prod
Munition Assy Conveyor II MS C
NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS
Concept provided to SECAF
Concept provided to AFSOC
Concept provided to ACC
Concept provided to ACC
Assessment sent to AFMC/CC
Concept provided to SOCOM
Concept provided to AFSOC
PDRR on track JCTD starts FY08
20 (13 7 )
1 2 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 0 2 3
AAC Totals
Realistic
Realistic, Carries Risk
10
FY07 AAC Sufficiency Reviews
Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes
AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS
User requirement withdrawn
AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS
AoA eliminated concept
PDRR Contract award FY10
COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Prototype effort on track
Contract award FY08
CRIIS Test Training
NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS
Extended User Eval
JCTD
User requirement withdrawn
FY08 JCTD SDD start FY10
22 (6 16 )
3 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 2
AAC Totals
Realistic
Realistic, Carries Risk
11
AAC Portfolio Performance
Program Rebaselines 3
12
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
• Dont
• 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 (DSWS) 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 reqd at key decision points
• AF-level Implementation planning now underway

15
Building Better ProgramsAttaining High Confidence

• 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/availabilit
  y)
• Proactive risk management
• Early, active test community involvement in test
  planning
• Up-front weaponeering mission planningand
  resources

Proposed by DSWS design teams
16
Way Ahead 2008 Plans

• Share AAC processes/lessons learned via DSWS
• 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 DSWS
• 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