Whats New in Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (AT&L) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

What’s New in Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (AT&L)

October 4, 2006

Diane Wright Deputy Director, Air Warfare OUSD(AT&L)

rev Sep 30 0900

2

USD(AT&L) Imperatives

• “Provide a context within which I can make decisions

about individual programs.”

• “Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition

and logistics support processes.”

• “Help drive good systems engineering practice back

into the way we do business.”

3

AT&L Organization Changes

• DUSD(A&T) – Dr. Jim Finley
• Flattened the structure

– Disassembled Defense Systems

• Portfolio Systems Acquisition – “Warfare” offices
• Systems Engineering
• System-of-Systems Management
• New faces

4

Areas for Improvement

What We Need to Do Better

Requirements

• Adapting to changing conditions
• Matching operational needs with

systems solutions

• Overcoming biases of Services and
• thers
• Moving to transform military

Acquisition

• Acquiring systems-of-systems
• Making system decisions in a joint,

mission context

• Transitioning technology
• Assessing complexity of new work

and ability to perform it

• Controlling schedule and cost
• Passing operational tests
• Ensuring a robust industrial base

PPBES

• Laying analytical foundation for

budget

• Aligning budgets with acquisition

decisions Sustainment

• Controlling O&S costs
• Reducing logistics tails

Personnel and Readiness

• Treating people as a resource

5

Focus on Initiatives

• Defense Acquisition Executive Summary

(DAES) Re-engineering

• DAB/OIPT Review Optimization
• Capability Area Review
• Concept Decision/Time-Defined Acquisition
• Capital Accounts
• Portfolio Management and Investment Balance

Reviews

• Risk-Based Source Selection
• Award and Incentive Fees

6

Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Re-engineering

7

Why Re-engineer DAES?

• Purpose

– Program execution oversight of MDAP programs – Help programs succeed – Serves as the tool for statutory quarterly cost reporting

• USD(AT&L) will assign DUSD(A&T) as responsible

for DAES

• DUSD(A&T) expressed concerns over old process

– Not effective for oversight; insufficient accountability for program management – Not treated as a decision forum

8

What changed?

• Re-engineered to make process more

effective

– Streamline and improve program execution

• versight of MDAP programs

– Enhance effectiveness of the process – Process based on trust and accountability – Sets stage for transparent, accurate, timely data input – Tightens up the focus on compliance with contract and baseline requirements – Risk-based assessments to identify trends early when the PM (or DoD, if needed) can engage – Increases discipline over cost

9

Data Input & New Meeting Format

• Improved data input

– Hyperlink to Service databases for transparent, accurate, timely data

• Monthly, PM assesses program in 3-chart format

– Compliance with contract(s) and approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)

• Current status and looking forward (+8 months)
• Color-codes clearly defined

– Issues, with closure plans (30/60/90 days, inchstones) – Risk cube, with mitigation plans

• Based on Risk Guide
• Meeting

– Attendance: SAEs, CAEs, 3-star, and Director-level – Sit down discussion vs. briefing style – Review programs by exception

10

3-Charts for PM Assessment

Issue Summary (Chart 2)

Date: ________ Program Name: ________ 3 4 2 n 5 Sep 20 Sep 20 Nov 20

Failure investigation board complete Tailor test objectives for next test Redesign wing, as necessary

Example: Test Failure 1

Closure Date Action Plan Issue/Problem Description No. …

• 1 months
• 3 months
• 2 months

+ 3 months + 1 months + 2 months + 6 months + 4 months + 5 months + 8 months current + 7 months

• 1 months
• 3 months
• 2 months

+ 3 months + 1 months + 2 months + 6 months + 4 months + 5 months + 8 months current + 7 months

• 1 months
• 3 months
• 2 months

+ 3 months + 1 months + 2 months + 6 months + 4 months + 5 months + 8 months current + 7 months

Program Status (Chart 1)

• Cost
• Schedule
• Performance
• Funding

Comments:

Date: ________ Program Name: ________

Consequence 4 3 2 1

Risk Summary (Chart 3)

5 Likelihood 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

• Risk:
• Driver:
• Mitigation:
• Date:
• Risk:
• Driver:
• Mitigation:
• Date:
• Risk: Engine components may not

withstand projected heat

• Driver: High exhaust temperature
• Mitigation: Measure temperatures at

key locations. Test components at higher temperatures. Invest in technology to reduce engine temperature

• Date: Sep 30, Nov 10, Feb 20

Date: ________ Program Name: ________

Example:

11

September Meeting – First Run

• Programs were challenging; good stress-test for the

process

– C-130 Avionic Modernization Plan – VH-71 Presidential Helicopter – Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter was deferred until October meeting

• Good feedback

– High-level attendance – Face-to-face, tabletop discussion with PM – PEO and SAE also contributed – Excellent discussion, positive give-and-take, no tension

• Actions assigned

12

Working with the New DAES Process

• Advice to Program Managers and contractors

– Establish programs with sufficient trade space (performance, schedule, and cost)

• Trade space is important since most programs are

complex with considerable risk – Look forward; forecast risks and work on them early – Establish and track risk mitigation and issue closure plans – Learn how to use the risk cube

• New Risk Guide

– Be alert to leading indicators and trends – Use your Earned Value Management Systems – Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

13

DAB/OIPT Review Optimization

14

DAB/OIPT Review Optimization

• Streamlining DAB Reviews

– Several programs identified as not requiring DAB meetings – We are working on consistency of DAB presentation to focus on what has already been resolved, less charts, more opportunity for discussion

• PSA Deputy Directors will remain as OIPT leads

– Service staff engage with OSD; specifically, PSA Warfare office and JS – For Milestones, recommend engaging 9-12 months ahead of required DAB date. Gain DoD agreement early on list of Milestone documents to be prepared – Program Managers (PM) should use Service and DoD staff as facilitators

• OIPT timing based on desired DAB schedule date

– IIPTs not mandatory; focused team meetings at PM’s request – Need to address exit criteria, Acquisition Decision Memorandum guidance, compliance with requirements

15

Capability Area Reviews (CAR)

16

Why Capability Area Reviews?

• Dealing with limited budgets

– Shape the Department’s acquisition vision with an

• verall context and understanding of a mission area

– Align portfolio decisions with requirements focus

• Explore portfolio to address where we are, where

do we want to be, what do we need to get there

• What is the best use of taxpayer dollar?
• What gaps or overages exist in capability?

17

Land Attack Weapons CAR

• Land Attack Weapons Portfolio

– Collaborate with Services, OSD Offices, Joint Staff, Defense Agencies, COCOM Reps – Lay foundation for Conventional Weapons Engagement Capabilities Roadmap and the shared munitions database

• Weapon design/performance not the primary issue

– First order assessment of gaps/redundancies for

• Moving/flexible targets?
• Area targets?

18

Land Attack Weapons CAR (cont’d)

• Explored cross-weapon programmatic issue,

both current and projected

• Endorsed framework for commonality/jointness

– GPS upgrades – Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) – Fuzes – Anti-tamper – Sustainment and logistics; identification tags – Thermal batteries – Insensitive Munitions (IM) – Variable warhead/energetics – Unexploded ordnance – Weapons datalinks – Targeting; Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) – Weapons Operational Test assessments – Universal Armament Interface (UAI) – Test and training ranges – Industrial base/production strategies – Battlespace awareness

19

Capability Area Reviews

• Expect CARs and Roadmaps to be refined as

we branch into portfolios

• Still evolving what constitutes a portfolio

– Capability focused, product focused, etc.

• Multi-program looks are important

– Shapes vision – Focuses technologies investments – Enhances commonality across programs

20

Please Stay Tuned…

• Other initiatives are also evolving

– A number of “pilots” are underway for strategic governance and process improvements

• Concept Decision/Time-Defined Acquisition/Capital

Accounts/Portfolio Management/Investment Balance Reviews/Risk-Based Source Selection/Award and Incentive Fees

• Strategic governance is bigger than AT&L

– Shapes investments – Underpins budget decisions – Improves stability through early support – Prioritizes requirements across portfolios – Restores acquisition system credibility

Be a part of making the system better